User agent detail

=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/10.0.648.204 Safari/534.16
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-436.php
yesFake ChromeBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake ChromeBot/Crawler0.006 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 10.0.648.204closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 10.0.648.204closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.192 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 10.0WebKit Windows 7desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 10.0.648.204closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 10.0.648closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.011 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 10.0.648.204closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.06 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 10.0.648.204WebKit 534.16Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.411 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 10Webkit 534.16Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 10.0.648.204closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close Desktopcloseclose0.017 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 13:30:42 | by ThaDafinser