User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; xx; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011022 Netscape6/6.2
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/browser-netscape.yaml
Netscape 6.2Linux Gecko 0.9.4desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Netscape 6.0Gecko Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.062 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Netscape Navigator 6.2closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.20502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Netscape 6.2Gecko GNU/Linux desktop0.012 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Netscape Navigator 6.2closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Netscape 6.2closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Netscape 6.2closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 6.2Gecko 20011022Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41204 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Netscape 6.2Gecko 0.9.4Linux desktopcloseclose0.003 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 13:36:12 | by ThaDafinser