User agent detail

AmigaVoyager/2.95 (compatible; MC680x0; AmigaOS; SV1)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-900.php
Voyager 2.95unknown unknownAmiga OS unknownCommodoreAmigaDesktop0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
Voyager 2.95 Amiga OS CommodoreAmigaDesktop0.004 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
Voyager 2.95closeAmiga OS closecloseDesktopclose0.014 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
AmigaVoyager 2.95closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

Amiga Voyager 2.95closeAmiga OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.21301 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Amiga Voyager 2.95 AmigaOS desktop0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

AmigaVoyager 2.95closeAmigaOS closecloseclosecloseclose0.076 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Voyager 2.95 AmigaOS desktopcloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
Amiga Voyager 2.95closeAmigaOS 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 07:59:08 | by ThaDafinser