User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chedot/43.0.2357.402 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-712.php
Chedot 43.0Win8 6.2unknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Chedot 43.0WebKit Win8 6.2Windows DesktopDesktop0.011 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Safari 537.36closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Safari 537.36closeWindows 6.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.18302 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Safari WebKit Windows 8desktop0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Safari closeWindows 8closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari closeWindows 8 closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeWindows 8 closecloseclosecloseclose0.14201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Safari WebKit 537.36Windows Windows NT 6.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Safari Webkit 537.36Windows 8desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Safari 8.0closeFedora Desktopcloseclose0.011 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 13:39:49 | by ThaDafinser