User agent detail

Mozila/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-436.php
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler0.02 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident Windows XPdesktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 6.0closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 6.0closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.09801 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 6.0Trident Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41304 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 6.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 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 13:31:26 | by ThaDafinser