User agent detail

Mozilla/3.04 (compatible; NCBrowser/2.35; ANTFresco/2.17; RISC OS-NC 5.13 Laz1UK1309)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/unknown.yml
RISC OS 5.13 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Netscape 3.0Gecko Desktop0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
ANT Fresco 2.17closeRISC OS 5.13desktop-browsercloseclose0.19208 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
RISC OS 5.13yes0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 3.04close closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 3.4 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41116 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
ANT Fresco 2.17 RISC OS 5.13desktopcloseclose0.008 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Japan Radio CompanyWX330JFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.019 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 13:35:30 | by ThaDafinser