User agent detail

Links (2.8; Linux 3.10.17 x86_64; GNU C 4.8.1; text)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-295.php
Links 2.8Linux unknownunknown unknownLinux DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Links 2.8 Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.007 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Links closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Links 2.8closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19498 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Links 2.8Text-based GNU/Linux desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Links 2.8closeLinux 3.10.17closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Links 2.8closeGNU closecloseclosecloseclose0.055 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Links 2.8 Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.56794 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Links 2.8 Linux closeclose0.015 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
No result found

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 13:34:50 | by ThaDafinser