User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120125 SeaMonkey/2.7
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/browser-seamonkey.yaml
SeaMonkey 2.7Windows 7Gecko 10.0desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
SeaMonkey 2.7Gecko Win7 6.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
SeaMonkey 2.7closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SeaMonkey 2.7Gecko Windows 7desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
SeaMonkey 2.7closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
SeaMonkey 2.7closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
SeaMonkey 2.7closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.055 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Seamonkey 2.7Gecko 20120125Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SeaMonkey 2.7Gecko 10.0Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.009 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 13:34:28 | by ThaDafinser