User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7 (via ggpht.com GoogleImageProxy)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-121.php
yesGoogle Image ProxyBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesGoogle Image ProxyBot/Crawler0.027 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Firefox 3.0.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Firefox 3.0.7closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.188 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
yesGmail Image ProxyCrawler0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Firefox 3.0.7closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Firefox 3.0.7closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Firefox 3.0.7closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.074 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Firefox 3.0.7Gecko 2009021910Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.45 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Firefox 3.0.7Gecko 1.9.0Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Firefox 3.0.7closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close Desktopcloseclose0.008 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 13:30:53 | by ThaDafinser