User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Darwin; FreeBSD 5.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1b3pre)Gecko/20081211 K-Meleon/1.5.2
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-900.php
Default Browser 0.0unknown unknownunknown unknownunknownunknownunknown0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla 1.9.1b3preclose closecloseclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

K-Meleon 1.5.2closeBSD 5.6desktop-browsercloseclose0.24001 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
K-meleon 1.5Gecko Mac desktop0.006 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 1.9closeFreeBSD closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
K-Meleon 1.5.2closeFreeBSD 5.6closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

Mozilla 5.0Gecko 1.9.1closeclosecloseDesktopclosecloseclose0.16501 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

K-Meleon 1.5.2closeFreeBSD closecloseclosecloseclose0.072 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

K-Meleon 1.5.2Gecko 20081211FreeBSD closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23601 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
K-Meleon 1.5.2Gecko 1.9.1b3FreeBSD 5.6desktopcloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
K-Meleon 1.5.2closeFreeBSD 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 07:55:59 | by ThaDafinser