User agent detail

Cyberduck/4.6.4 (16610) (Windows XP/5.1) (x86)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-562.php
yesCyberduckBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesCyberduckBot/Crawler0.015 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Cyberduck 4.6.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.23702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Windows XPdesktop0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.65507 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.014 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 13:32:21 | by ThaDafinser