User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux mipsel; U; HbbTV/1.1.1 (; TOSHIBA; DTV_RL953; 56.7.66.7; t12; ) ; ToshibaTP/1.3.0 (+VIDEO_MP4+VIDEO_X_MS_ASF+AUDIO_MPEG+AUDIO_MP4+DRM+NATIVELAUNCH) ; en) AppleWebKit/534.1 (KHTML, like Gecko)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/television/toshiba.yaml
Webkit 534.1ToshibaRegza RL953 Smart TVtelevision Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AppleWebKit 534.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Apple Mail closeLinux email-clientcloseclose0.19502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux ToshibaDTV RL953tv0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux TOSHIBADTV_RL953closeclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.18802 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mozilla 5.0WebKit 534.1Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Webkit 534.1 ToshibaRegza RL953 Smart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.009 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 13:34:02 | by ThaDafinser