User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Haiku R1 x86; xx) AppleWebKit/536.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) WebPositive/1.1 Safari/536.10
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/os-haiku.yaml
WebPositive 1.1Haiku Webkit 536.10desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 536.10closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 536.10close desktop-browsercloseclose0.183 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
WebPositive WebKit Haiku OS desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari close closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeHaiku closecloseclosecloseclose0.049 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Safari WebKit 536.10 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
WebPositive 1.1Webkit 536.10Haiku desktopcloseclose0.004 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 13:30:55 | by ThaDafinser