User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux mips; U; xx) Presto/2.10.250 Version/11.60 , VMS/12.23.4.1 (MMI, VMS1100, wired)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/television/browser-opera.yaml
Opera Devices 3.2 Presto 2.10.250MMIVMS1100 Smart TVtelevision Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 11.60Presto 2.10Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 11.60closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.80closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 11.60Presto GNU/Linux desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 11.60 , VMS/12.23.4.1 (MMI, VMS1100, wired)closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 11.60closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 11.60closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 11.60Presto 2.10.250Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Devices 3.2Presto 2.10.250 MMIVMS1100 Smart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 11.60closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 11.10closeLinux zvav Desktopcloseclose0.01 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 13:34:33 | by ThaDafinser