User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/31.0.1650.63 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-000-chrome.php
Chrome 31.0Linux unknownunknown unknownLinux DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chrome 31.0Blink Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.036 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 31.0.1650.63closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 31.0.1650.63closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 31.0Blink GNU/Linux desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 31.0.1650.63closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 31.0.1650closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 31.0.1650.63closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.08401 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 31.0.1650.63WebKit 537.36Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 31Blink Linux desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 31.0.1650.63closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 31.0.1650.63closeLinux i686 Desktopcloseclose0.032 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 13:36:03 | by ThaDafinser