User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; xx; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070531 CentOS/1.0.9-0.1.el3.centos3 SeaMonkey/1.0.9
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/browser-seamonkey.yaml
SeaMonkey 1.0.9CentOS 3Gecko 1.8.0desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
SeaMonkey 1.0Gecko Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.025 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
SeaMonkey 1.0.9closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18908 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SeaMonkey 1.0Gecko CentOS 1.0desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
SeaMonkey 1.0.9closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
SeaMonkey 1.0.9closeCentOS closeclosecloseclose0.012 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
SeaMonkey 1.0.9closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.06002 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Seamonkey 1.0.9Gecko 20070531Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40516 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SeaMonkey 1.0.9Gecko 1.8.0CentOS 3desktopcloseclose0.004 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 13:35:38 | by ThaDafinser