User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/34.0 SeaMonkey/2.31
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-618.php
SeaMonkey 2.31Win7 6.1unknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
SeaMonkey 2.31Gecko Win7 6.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.02 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Firefox 34.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
SeaMonkey 2.31closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SeaMonkey 2.31Gecko Windows 7desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
SeaMonkey 2.31closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
SeaMonkey 2.31closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
SeaMonkey 2.31closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.047 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Seamonkey 2.31Gecko 20100101Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SeaMonkey 2.31Gecko 34.0Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Firefox 34.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Firefox 34.0closeWindows 7Desktopcloseclose0.014 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 13:34:30 | by ThaDafinser