User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.22 (KHTML, like Gecko) Superbird/27.0.1453.93 Safari/537.22
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-712.php
SuperBird 27.0Win7 6.1unknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
SuperBird 27.0WebKit Win7 6.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.019 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.22closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Superbird 27.0.1453.93closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18404 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit Windows 7desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.015 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.05101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Safari WebKit 537.22Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.45109 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Superbird 27.0Webkit 537.22Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.006 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.007 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 13:38:05 | by ThaDafinser