User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2 Warp 4.5) AppleWebKit/537.21 (KHTML, like Gecko) QupZilla/1.6.4 Safari/537.21
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-788.php
QupZilla 1.6OS/2 unknownunknown unknowngeneral DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
QupZilla 1.6WebKit OS/2 Desktop0.04801 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.21closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
QupZilla 1.6.4closeOS/2 desktop-browsercloseclose0.305 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit OS/2 desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
QupZilla 1.6.4close closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeOS/2 closecloseclosecloseclose0.091 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QupZilla 1.6.4WebKit 537.21OS/2 Warp closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.409 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QupZilla 1.6.4Webkit 537.21 desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
No result found

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