User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux sh4; U; CNV001; en;) HbbTV/1.1.1 (;CreNova;CNV001;1.0;1.0; FXM-U2FsdGVkX1/Oiw1OD4kjnYIMtRrxMWUbzbPMsylGXvFEN7YI7l5UInvIDEkFxQa5-END; en) Presto/2.9.167 Version/11.50
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/tv.yml
Opera 11.50GNU/Linux Presto CreNovaCNV001tv Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 11.50Presto 2.9Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.006 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 11.50closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 11.50closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 11.50Presto GNU/Linux CreNovaCNV001tv0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 11.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux CreNovaCNV001closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 11.50closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.07101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 11.50Presto 2.9.167Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Devices 3.1Presto 2.9.167 CreNovaCNV001televisioncloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 11.50closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.009 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 13:31:59 | by ThaDafinser