User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 IceDragon/26.0.0.2
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-498.php
IceDragon 26.0Win7 6.126.0 unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
IceDragon 26.0Gecko 26.0Win7 6.1Windows DesktopDesktop0.06801 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Firefox 26.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
IceDragon 26.0.0.2closeWindows 6.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.19702 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
IceDragon 26.0Gecko Windows 7desktop0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Firefox 26.0closeWindows 7closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Firefox 26.0closeWindows 7 closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Firefox 26.0closeWindows 7 closecloseclosecloseclose0.10101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Comodo IceDragon 26.0.0.2Gecko 20100101Windows Windows NT 6.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.40904 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Comodo IceDragon 26.0Gecko 26.0Windows 7desktopcloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Firefox 26.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
closeLinux Desktopcloseclose0.02 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 13:42:13 | by ThaDafinser