User agent detail

AtomicBrowser/6.0.1 CFNetwork/548.0.4 Darwin/11.0.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-651.php
Atomic Browser 6.0iOS 5.0unknown Applegeneral Mobile DeviceMobile Deviceyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Atomic Browser 6.0WebKit iOS 5.0AppleMobile Deviceyesyes0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AtomicBrowser 6.0.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Atomic Web Browser 6.0.1closeiOS mobile-browseryescloseclose0.192 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
iOS 5.0yes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
CFNetwork 548.0.4closeiOS 5.0.1Applecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Darwin closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.419 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
iOS 5.0.1mobile:smartyescloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Mobile Safari 5.0closeiOS 5.0AppleiPhoneSmartphoneyesyescloseclose0.05 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 13:29:41 | by ThaDafinser