User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 Gecko/20030306 Camino/0.7
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-900.php
Camino 0.7Gecko unknownMacOSX 10AppleMacintoshDesktop0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Camino 0.7Gecko MacOSX 10AppleMacintoshDesktop0.0156 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Camino 0.7closeMacOSX closecloseDesktopclose0.0156 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Camino 0.7closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Camino 0.7close desktop-browsercloseclose0.2184 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Camino 0.7Gecko 0.0156 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 5.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Camino 0.7close closeclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

Camino 0.7close closecloseclosecloseclose0.1092 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Camino 0.7Gecko 20030306 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.234 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Camino 0.7Gecko desktopcloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
Camino 0.7close 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 07:51:40 | by ThaDafinser