User agent detail

Mozilla/4.00 [en] (Compatible; RISC OS 4.39; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; Oregano 1.10)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
whichbrowser/parser
/tests/data/desktop/os-riscos.yaml
Oregano 1.10RISC OS 4.39 desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
MSIE 5.01closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Oregano 1.10closeWindows 98desktop-browsercloseclose0.19502 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Internet Explorer 5.01Trident Windows 98desktop0.011 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Internet Explorer 5.01closeWindows 98closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
IE 5.1closeWindows 98 closeclosecloseclose0.021 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Internet Explorer 5.01closeWindows 98 closecloseclosecloseclose0.07501 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Internet Explorer 5.1Trident Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.42404 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Oregano 1.10 RISC OS 4.39desktopcloseclose0.01 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
No result found

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 13:42:28 | by ThaDafinser