User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 4.1 Chrome/31.0.1229.79
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-814.php
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler0.058 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 9.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 31.0.1229.79closeWindows 4.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.19002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 31.0Blink Windows NTdesktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 9.0closeWindows closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 31.0.1229closeWindows closeclosecloseclose0.013 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
MSIE close closecloseclosecloseclose0.047 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 31.0.1229.79 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome Dev 31.0.1229.79 Windows NT 4.1desktopcloseclose0.009 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Internet Explorer 9.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.008 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 13:37:47 | by ThaDafinser