User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.10 Safari/537.36 OPR/27.0.1689.22 (Edition developer)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-523.php
Opera 27.0Linux unknownunknown unknownLinux DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Opera 27.0Blink Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.023 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera Next 27.0.1689.22closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Opera 27.0.1689.22closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.19606 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Opera 27.0Blink GNU/Linux desktop0.01 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 27.0.1689.22closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Opera 27.0.1689closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.013 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 40.0.2214.10closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.07502 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Opera 27.0.1689.22WebKit 537.36Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40612 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Opera Developer 27.0Blink Linux desktopcloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Opera 27.0.1689.22closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 27.0.1689.22closeLinux x86_64 Desktopcloseclose0.013 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 13:37:25 | by ThaDafinser