User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chedot/43.0.2357.402 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-712.php
Chedot 43.0Win7 6.1unknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chedot 43.0WebKit Win7 6.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.36closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 537.36closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit Windows 7desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.065 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Safari WebKit 537.36Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.399 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Safari Webkit 537.36Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.008 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 13:33:24 | by ThaDafinser