User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Dragon/42.2.2.138 Chrome/42.0.2311.135 Safari/537.36
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-712.php
Dragon 42.2WinXP 5.1unknown unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Dragon 42.2Blink WinXP 5.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Chrome 42.0.2311.135closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Chrome 42.0.2311.135closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.17902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Chrome 42.0Blink Windows XPdesktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Chrome 42.0.2311.135closeWindows XPclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Chrome 42.0.2311closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Chrome 42.0.2311.135closeWindows XP closecloseclosecloseclose0.22202 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Chrome 42.0.2311.135WebKit 537.36Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.41004 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Comodo Dragon 42.2Blink Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.005 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Chrome 42.0.2311.135closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Chrome 42.0.0.10338closeWindows 10Desktopcloseclose0.087 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 13:40:40 | by ThaDafinser