User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0(compatible;MSIE 7.0;Windows NT 6.1;SV1;.NET CLR 1.0.3705;.NET CLR 3.0.30618)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-500.php
yesFake IEBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake IEBot/Crawler0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 7.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IE 7.0closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.20702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 7.0Trident Windows 7desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 7.0closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 7.0closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.009 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 7.0closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.05901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 7.0Trident Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40104 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Internet Explorer 7.0 Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.013 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
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 13:39:43 | by ThaDafinser