User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Lotus-Notes/6.0; Windows-NT)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-436.php
Lotus Notes 6.0WinNT unknownunknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Lotus Notes 6.0 WinNT Windows DesktopDesktop0.039 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Lotus Notes 6.0closeWindows email-clientcloseclose0.19602 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Lotus Notes 6.0 Windows desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 4.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeWindows closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 4.0 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Lotus Notes 6.0 Windows desktopcloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 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 13:32:07 | by ThaDafinser