User agent detail

IBrowse/2.4 (AmigaOS 3.9; 68K)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/desktop.yml
IBrowse 2.4AmigaOS 3.9 desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IBrowse 2.4 Amiga OS Desktop0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
IBrowse 2.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IBrowse 2.4closeAmiga OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.187 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS 3.9desktop0.009 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
IBrowse 2.4close closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
IBrowse 2.4closeMacintosh closecloseclosecloseclose0.103 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
No result found
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS 3.9desktopcloseclose0.018 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
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 13:29:54 | by ThaDafinser