User agent detail

['Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/38.0.2125.111 Safari/537.36 GD']
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-749.php
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesFake BrowserBot/Crawler0.018 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.111closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 38.0.2125.111closeWindows 6.2desktop-browsercloseclose0.19902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 38.0Blink Windows 8desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.111closeWindows 8closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 38.0.2125closeWindows 8 closeclosecloseclose0.007 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 38.0.2125.111closeWindows 8 closecloseclosecloseclose0.043 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 38.0.2125.111WebKit 537.36Windows Windows NT 6.2closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40504 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Chrome 38Blink Windows 8desktopcloseclose0.012 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 38.0.2125.111closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close Desktopcloseclose0.016 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 13:39:51 | by ThaDafinser