User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Tizen 2.2.1.3; SM-R750) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/34.0.1847.76 efl-webengine/0.1.1.1 Mobile Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/watch/os-tizen.yaml
Tizen 2.2.1.3Blink 537.36SamsungGear Swatchyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 34.0Blink Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.11699 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome Mobile 34.0.1847.76closeLinux generic web browsermobile-browseryescloseclose0.18 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 34.0Blink Tizen 2.2SamsungSM-R750smartphoneyes0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 34.0.1847closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.074 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 34.0.1847.76WebKit 537.36Linux Samsungcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.407 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Blink Tizen 2.2.1.3SamsungGear Swatchyescloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 34.0.1847.76closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 2.2closeLinux TizenFeature Phoneyesyescloseclose0.017 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 13:35:15 | by ThaDafinser