User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko Firefox/11.0 (via ggpht.com GoogleImageProxy)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-533.php
yesGoogle Image ProxyBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesGoogle Image ProxyBot/Crawler0.022 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Firefox 11.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Firefox 11.0closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
yesGmail Image ProxyCrawler0.012 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Firefox 11.0closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Firefox 11.0closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Firefox 11.0closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.046 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Firefox 11.0Gecko Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Firefox 11.0Gecko 11.0Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.017 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Firefox 11.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Firefox 11.0closeWindows 8Desktopcloseclose0.01 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 13:30:33 | by ThaDafinser