User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 4.0; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-279.php
Thunderbird 17.0WinNT 4.017.0 unknownWindows DesktopDesktop Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Thunderbird 17.0Gecko 17.0WinNT 4.0Windows DesktopDesktop0.036 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
Thunderbird 17.0.2closeWindows 4.0email-clientcloseclose0.193 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Thunderbird 17.0 Windows NTdesktop0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0closeWindows NT 4.0closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Thunderbird 17.0.2closeWindows NT 4.0 closeclosecloseclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Thunderbird 17.0.2closeWindows NT closecloseclosecloseclose0.223 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mozilla 17.0Gecko 20130107Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.417 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Thunderbird 17.0.2Gecko 17.0Windows NT 4.0desktopcloseclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close Desktopcloseclose0.01 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 13:43:15 | by ThaDafinser