User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.6; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0; InfoPath.2; SLCC1; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 3gpp-gba UNTRUSTED/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-084.php
yesFake IEBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake IEBot/Crawler0.08701 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 10.6closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 10.6closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 9.0Trident Windows 7desktop0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 10.6closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 10.6closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 10.6closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.07301 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 9.0Trident 5.0Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.36404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 10.6Trident 5.0Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 10.6closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Java Applet close J2ME MidletFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.009 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 13:31:21 | by ThaDafinser