User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; BTRS101607; OfficeLiveConnector.1.3; OfficeLivePatch.0.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; Ask
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-084.php
IE 8.0WinXP 5.14.0 unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IE 8.0Trident 4.0WinXP 5.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 8.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 8.0closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.20302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 8.0Trident Windows XPdesktop0.021 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 8.0closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 8.0closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 8.0closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.07701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 8.0Trident 4.0Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.36704 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 8.0Trident 4.0Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.022 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 8.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
IE 8(Compatibility View)closeWindows XPDesktopcloseclose0.008 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 13:30:34 | by ThaDafinser