User agent detail

opera/9.80, M350/0.1.46_flash (Sagemcom_Broadband_SAS,DIW350_TP,Wired)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/television/other.yaml
Opera Devices DIW350televisionclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Opera 9.80closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Opera close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Opera 9.80close media-playercloseclose0.20201 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Opera 9.80Presto Sagemsmartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Opera 9.80,close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

Opera 9.80 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.16801 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Opera 9.80close closecloseclosecloseclose0.062 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Opera 9.80 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.25302 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Opera Devices SagemcomDIW350televisioncloseclose0 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
Opera 9.80close MeizuM350closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:01:59 | by ThaDafinser