User agent detail

AtomicBrowser/3.7.1 CFNetwork/467.12 Darwin/10.3.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-651.php
Atomic Browser 3.7WebKit unknowniOS 3.2Applegeneral Mobile DeviceMobile Deviceyesyes0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Atomic Browser 3.7WebKit iOS 3.2AppleMobile Deviceyesyes0.009 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Atomic Browser 3.7closeDarwin closecloseDesktopclose0.025 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
AtomicBrowser 3.7.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

Atomic Web Browser 3.7.1closeiOS mobile-browseryescloseclose0.20901 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Atomic Web Browser 3.7 iOS 3.2yes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
CFNetwork 467.12closeiOS 4Applecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Darwin closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23501 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
iOS 4mobile:smartyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosesmartphoneclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
Atomic Web Browser 3.7.1closeMac OS Darwin closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 07:58:57 | by ThaDafinser