User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.21 (KHTML, like Gecko) QupZilla/1.6.1 Safari/537.21
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-788.php
QupZilla 1.6Linux unknownunknown unknownLinux DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
QupZilla 1.6WebKit Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.062 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.21closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
QupZilla 1.6.1closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18305 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit GNU/Linux desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
QupZilla 1.6.1closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.12404 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
QupZilla 1.6.1WebKit 537.21Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41712 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
QupZilla 1.6.1Webkit 537.21Linux desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari 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 13:37:35 | by ThaDafinser