User agent detail

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Gecko/20041115) Maple 5.0.0 Navi
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
vendor/piwik/device-detector/Tests/fixtures/tv.yml
Samsungtvcloseclose0 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/television/samsung.yaml
Gecko televisionclosecloseclose0 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 close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

close media-playercloseclose0.20401 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Samsungtv0.002 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 4.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

Mozilla 5.0.0close closecloseclosecloseclose0.08101 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Netscape Navigator 4.0Gecko 20041115 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23301 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Gecko SamsungSmart TV 2009televisioncloseclose0 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 07:58:41 | by ThaDafinser