User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26a1 Lightning/3.1a1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
piwik/device-detector
/Tests/fixtures/desktop.yml
SeaMonkey 2.26GNU/Linux Gecko desktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
SeaMonkey 2.26Gecko Linux Linux DesktopDesktop0.04901 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Firefox 29.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
SeaMonkey 2.26a1closeLinux desktop-browsercloseclose0.18902 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
SeaMonkey 2.26Gecko GNU/Linux desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
SeaMonkey 2.26a1closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
SeaMonkey 2.26.0closeLinux closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
SeaMonkey 2.26a1closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.05701 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Seamonkey 2.26a1Gecko 20100101Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.57406 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Lightning 3.1Gecko 29.0Linux desktopcloseclose0.011 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Firefox 29.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Firefox 29.0closeWindows 8.1Desktopcloseclose0.016 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 13:42:35 | by ThaDafinser