User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; DAWINCI ANTIPLAG SPIDER)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-588.php
yesDAWINCI ANTIPLAG SPIDERBot/Crawler0 Detail
UAParser
v0.5.0.2
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_ua.yaml
ANTIPLAG SPIDER close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
yesDAWINCI ANTIPLAG SPIDERBot/Crawler0.006 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
close closecloseyesDAWINCI ANTIPLAG SPIDERclose0.01 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close closeyesclose0.23801 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
yes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseyesANTIPLAG SPIDERclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Netscape Navigator 4.0 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23701 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
closeyesclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closecloseclosecloseclosecloseyesclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close yescloseclose0.016 Detail
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 07:53:14 | by ThaDafinser