User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_7 HTC_DesireHD-orange-LS; en-us) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/530.17
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
HTCDesireHD-orange-LS Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Safari 4.0WebKit MacOSX 10.5AppleMacintoshDesktop0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 4.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 4.0closeOS X desktop-browsercloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari 4.0WebKit Mac 10.5HTCDesireHD-orange-LSsmartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari 4.0closeOS X 10.5.7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari 4.0closeMac OS X 10.5.7HTCDesireHD-orange-LScloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari 4.0closeOS X 10.5.7closecloseclosecloseclose0.05 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Safari 4.0WebKit 530.17Mac OS X 10.5.7HTC Desire HDcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Safari 4.0Webkit 530.17Mac OS X 10.5HTCDesireHDmobile:featureyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari 4.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 4.0closeMac OS X 10.5.7HTCDisguised as MacintoshFeature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.027 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 13:30:26 | by ThaDafinser