User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Comodo_Dragon/4.1.1.11 Chrome/4.1.249.1042 Safari/532.5
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_os.yaml
Windows XP Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 4.1.249.1042closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Comodo Dragon 4.1.1.11closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.18802 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Comodo Dragon 4.1WebKit Windows XPdesktop0.008 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 4.1.249.1042closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Comodo Dragon 4.1.1closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.01 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Comodo_Dragon 4.1.1.11closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.07001 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Comodo Dragon 4.1.1.11WebKit 532.5Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40804 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Comodo Dragon 4.1Webkit 532.5Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 4.1.249.1042closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 4.1.249.1025closeWindows VistaDesktopcloseclose0.016 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 13:40:39 | by ThaDafinser