User agent detail

\x22Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.66 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-513.php
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 30.0.1599.66closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 30.0.1599.66closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 30.0Blink GNU/Linux desktop0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 30.0.1599.66closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 30.0.1599closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.022 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 30.0.1599.66closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.09801 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 30.0.1599.66WebKit 537.36Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.48805 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 30Blink Linux desktopcloseclose0.009 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 30.0.1599.66closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 30.0.1599.114closeLinux x86_64 Desktopcloseclose0.016 Detail

About this comparison

The primary goal of this project is simple
I wanted to know which user agent parser is the most accurate in each part - device detection, bot detection and so on...

The secondary goal is to provide a source for all user agent parsers to improve their detection based on this results.

You can also improve this further, by suggesting ideas at ThaDafinser/UserAgentParserComparison

The comparison is based on the abstraction by ThaDafinser/UserAgentParser
Comparison created 2016-02-13 13:29:11 | by ThaDafinser