User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux) AppleWebKit/535.22 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.133 Safari/535.22 Midori/0.4
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-436.php
Midori 0.4Linux unknownunknown unknownLinux DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Midori 0.4WebKit Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Midori 0.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Midori 0.4closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Midori 0.4WebKit GNU/Linux desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 18.0.1025.133closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 18.0.1025closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.021 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Midori 0.4closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.048 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Midori 0.4WebKit 535.22Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.434 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Midori 0.4Webkit 535.22Linux desktopcloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 18.0.1025.133closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 18.0.1025.133closeWindows VistaDesktopcloseclose0.057 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 13:29:59 | by ThaDafinser