User agent detail

Mozilla/3.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i586; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_os.yaml
Linux 2.4.2 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Netscape 3.0Gecko Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Netscape Navigator 6.01closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18402 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Netscape 6.01Gecko GNU/Linux desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Netscape Navigator 6.01closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Netscape 6.1closeLinux 2.4.2closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Netscape 6.01closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.048 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 6.1Gecko 20010131Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Netscape 6.01Gecko Linux desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Japan Radio CompanyWX330JFeature Phoneyescloseclose0.023 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 13:39:28 | by ThaDafinser