User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux mips; ) Presto/2.12.407 Version/12.51 MB95/3.3.6.X (TOSHIBA, Si2156LG32, wired)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/television/browser-opera.yaml
Opera Devices 3.4 Presto 2.12.407ToshibaSi2156LG32 Smart TVtelevision Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 12.51closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 9.80closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.209 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 12.51Presto GNU/Linux ToshibaSCH-I939Dsmartphoneyes0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 12.51 MB95/3.3.6.X (TOSHIBA, Si2156LG32, wired)closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 12.51closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.019 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Opera 12.51closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.071 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 12.51Presto 2.12.407Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.406 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Devices 3.4Presto 2.12.407 ToshibaSi2156LG32 Smart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 12.51closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.16closeLinux x86_64 Desktopcloseclose0.012 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 13:34:59 | by ThaDafinser