User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; DAWINCI ANTIPLAG SPIDER)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
browscap/browscap
/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-588.php
ANTIPLAG SPIDER yesDAWINCI ANTIPLAG SPIDERBot/Crawler Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
yesDAWINCI ANTIPLAG SPIDERBot/Crawler0.008 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom
close closeyesclose0.182 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
yes0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseyesANTIPLAG SPIDERclose0.008 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Netscape Navigator 4.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.409 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
closeyesclose0.007 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closecloseclosecloseclosecloseyesclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
close yescloseclose0.014 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 13:43:18 | by ThaDafinser