User agent detail

AtomicBrowser/3.7.1 CFNetwork/467.12 Darwin/10.3.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-651.php
Atomic Browser 3.7iOS 3.2unknown Applegeneral Mobile DeviceMobile Deviceyesyes Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Atomic Browser 3.7WebKit iOS 3.2AppleMobile Deviceyesyes0.021 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AtomicBrowser 3.7.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Atomic Web Browser 3.7.1closeiOS mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21002 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Mac desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
CFNetwork 467.12closeiOS 4Applecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Darwin closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40604 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
iOS 4mobile:smartyescloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0.001 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 13:38:24 | by ThaDafinser