User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.21 (KHTML, like Gecko) profiller Safari/537.21
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-498.php
yesprofillerBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesprofillerBot/Crawler0.037 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.21closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 537.21closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit GNU/Linux desktop0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.014 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.057 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
WebKit 537.21Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.415 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Webkit 537.21Linux desktopcloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
No result found

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 13:29:38 | by ThaDafinser