User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.19) Gecko WebThumb/1.0
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-267.php
yesWebThumbBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesWebThumbBot/Crawler0.042 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Mozilla rv:1.9.2.19closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.30809 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux desktop0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 1.9closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
WebThumb 1.0closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Mozilla 1.9.2.19closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.04902 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mozilla 1.9.2.19Gecko Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40812 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Gecko 1.9.2Linux desktopcloseclose0.007 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 13:37:29 | by ThaDafinser