User agent detail

htdig/3.1.5 (webmaster@online-medien.de)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-900.php
yesht://DigBot/Crawler0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
yesht://DigBot/Crawler0.009 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
close closecloseyesht://Digclose0.013 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
htdig 3.1.5closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

No result found
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
yes0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
close closeclosecloseyeshtdigclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

close closeclosecloseclosecloseyeshtdigCrawler0.063 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
closeyeshtdigclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
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 07:55:33 | by ThaDafinser