User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Lotus-Notes/6.0; Windows-NT)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-436.php
Lotus Notes 6.0unknown unknownWinNT unknownunknownWindows DesktopDesktop0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Lotus Notes 6.0 WinNT Desktop0.0156 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Lotus Notes close closecloseDesktopclose0.0156 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla closeWindows closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Lotus Notes 6.0closeWindows email-clientcloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Lotus Notes 6.0 Windows desktop0.0156 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 4.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeWindows closeclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Mozilla 4.0 closeclosecloseDesktopclosecloseclose0.156 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Netscape Navigator 4.0 Windows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Lotus Notes 6.0 Windows desktopcloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
closeWindows closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 2016-05-10 07:50:31 | by ThaDafinser