User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0b; Windows NT 6.0 ; .NET CLR 2.0.50215; SL Commerce Client v1.0; Tablet PC 2.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-267.php
yesSecond Live Commerce ClientBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesSecond Live Commerce ClientBot/Crawler0.011 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 7.0bcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 7.0bcloseWindows 6.0desktop-browsercloseclose0.32903 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 7.0Trident Windows Vistadesktop0.025 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 7.0bcloseWindows Vistaclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 7.0closeWindows Vista closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 7.0bcloseWindows Vista closecloseclosecloseclose0.051 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 7.0bTrident Windows Windows NT 6.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 7.0 Windows Vistadesktopcloseclose0.017 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.05801 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 13:32:23 | by ThaDafinser