User agent detail

LinkedInBot/1.0 (compatible; Mozilla/5.0; Jakarta Commons-HttpClient/3.1 +http://www.linkedin.com)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/Parser/fixtures/bots.yml
Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesLinkedInBotBot/Crawler0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LinkedInBot 1.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Jakarta Commons-HttpClient 3.1close software-librarycloseclose0.18702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
yesLinkedIn BotSocial Media Agent0.001 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseyesLinkedInBotclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Jakarta Commons HttpClient 3.1 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
closeyesLinkedin Botclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
HTTP Library Javacloseclosecloseclosemiscclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q05Aclose Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.01 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 13:37:36 | by ThaDafinser