User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.25
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/browser-seamonkey.yaml
SeaMonkey 2.25Windows XPGecko 28.0desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
SeaMonkey 2.25Gecko WinXP 5.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.025 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
SeaMonkey 2.25closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18711 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SeaMonkey 2.25Gecko Windows XPdesktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
SeaMonkey 2.25closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
SeaMonkey 2.25closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
SeaMonkey 2.25closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.07304 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Seamonkey 2.25Gecko 20100101Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40824 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
SeaMonkey 2.25Gecko 28.0Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 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 13:37:19 | by ThaDafinser