User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (jig browser web; 1.0.4; N02A)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-500.php
yesjig browser webBot/Crawler0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
yesjig browser webBot/Crawler0.0156 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
close closecloseyesjig browser webclose0.0156 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Jig Browser 1.0.4close NECN02Amobile-browseryescloseclose0.2028 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Jig Browser 1.0 0 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 4.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Netscape Navigator 4.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Jig Browser 1.0.4 NECN02Amobile:featureyescloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
jig browser 1.0.4closeclosecloseclosemobilephoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
No result found

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 07:50:38 | by ThaDafinser