User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.101 Safari/537.36 OPR/17.0.1241.53
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/browser-opera.yaml
Opera 17.0Windows XPBlink 537.36desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 17.0Blink WinXP 5.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.042 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 17.0.1241.53closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 17.0.1241.53closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 17.0Blink Windows XPdesktop0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 17.0.1241.53closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 17.0.1241closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 30.0.1599.101closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.19202 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 17.0.1241.53WebKit 537.36Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera 17.0Blink Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 17.0.1241.53closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close Desktopcloseclose0.012 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 13:31:48 | by ThaDafinser