User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.16 (KHTML, like Gecko, Google Keyword Suggestion) Chrome/10.0.648.127 Safari/534.16
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-432.php
yesGoogle Keyword SuggestionBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesGoogle Keyword SuggestionBot/Crawler0.04601 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 10.0.648.127closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 10.0.648.127closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18102 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 10.0WebKit GNU/Linux desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 10.0.648.127closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 10.0.648closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 10.0.648.127closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 10.0.648.127WebKit 534.16Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 10Webkit 534.16Linux desktopcloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 10.0.648.127closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close 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 13:34:37 | by ThaDafinser