User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux mipsel; U; HbbTV/1.1.1 (; TOSHIBA; DTV_RL933; 56.2.00.0; t12; ) ; ToshibaTP/1.3.0 (+VIDEO_MP4+VIDEO_X_MS_ASF+AUDIO_MPEG+AUDIO_MP4+DRM+NATIVELAUNCH) ; de) AppleWebKit/534.1 (KHTML, like Gecko)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
TOSHIBADTV_RL933 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
AppleWebKit 534.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Apple Mail closeLinux email-clientcloseclose0.197 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
GNU/Linux ToshibaDTV RL933tv0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Mozilla 5.0closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux TOSHIBADTV_RL933closeclosecloseclose0.015 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
Safari closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose0.173 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Mozilla 5.0WebKit 534.1Linux closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.413 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Webkit 534.1 ToshibaRegza RL933 Smart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.11closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose0.019 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 13:43:37 | by ThaDafinser