User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Opera/9.5) HTC Victor
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCVictor Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 7.0Trident Windows DesktopDesktop0.029 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 9.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 7.0close desktop-browsercloseclose0.198 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 9.5Presto HTCVictorsmartphoneyes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.5)close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 9.5close HTCVictorcloseclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 9.5close closecloseclosecloseclose0.045 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 9.5 HTCcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.412 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Mobile 9.5 HTCVictormobile:featureyescloseclose0.014 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 7.0closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux armv6l Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.014 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 13:29:29 | by ThaDafinser