User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chedot/43.0.2357.402 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-712.php
Chedot 43.0Win8.1 6.3unknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chedot 43.0WebKit Win8.1 6.3Windows DesktopDesktop0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.36closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 537.36closeWindows 6.3desktop-browsercloseclose0.21302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit Windows 8.1desktop0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeWindows 8.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari closeWindows 8.1 closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeWindows NT closecloseclosecloseclose0.058 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Safari WebKit 537.36Windows Windows NT 6.3closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Safari Webkit 537.36Windows 8.1desktopcloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.007 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 13:30:14 | by ThaDafinser