User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux mips; U; HbbTV/1.1.1 (; Vestel; MB95; 1.0; 1.0; ); en) Presto/2.10.287 Version/12.00 HbbTV/1.1.1 (; CUS:TELEFUNKEN; MB95; 2.1.4; 1.0;) CE-HTML/1.0 NETRANGEMMH iplayerV3
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/tv.yml
Opera 12.00GNU/Linux Presto TelefunkenMB95tv Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 12.00Presto 2.12Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.009 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 12.00closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.80closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.194 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 12.00Presto GNU/Linux TelefunkenMB95tv0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 12.00 HbbTV/1.1.1 (; CUS:TELEFUNKEN; MB95; 2.1.4; 1.0;) CE-HTML/1.0 NETRANGEMMH iplayerV3closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux VestelMB95closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 12.00closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.07 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 12.0Presto 2.10.287Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.425 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Devices 3.2Presto 2.10.287 VestelMB95televisioncloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 12.00closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.01 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 13:29:25 | by ThaDafinser