User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; MDDR; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Tablet PC 2.0); 360Spider
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/Parser/fixtures/bots.yml
Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yes360SpiderBot/Crawler0.022 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 8.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 8.0closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.19202 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
yes360SpiderSearch bot0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 8.0closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseyes360Spiderclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 8.0closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.06001 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
360Spider Trident 4.0Windows Windows NT 6.1Dellcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.36404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
closeyes360spiderclose0.009 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 8.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close yescloseclose0.01 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 13:32:43 | by ThaDafinser