User agent detail

IBrowse/2.4oem (AmigaOS V53; PPC; 68K build)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/desktop/os-amigaos.yaml
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS desktopclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
yesAmigaBot/Crawler0.013 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
close closecloseyesAmigaclose0.035 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
IBrowse 2.4oemcloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeMacintosh closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

IBrowse 2.4oemcloseAmiga OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.20901 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
IBrowse 2.4close closeclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

IBrowse 2.4oemcloseMacintosh closecloseclosecloseclose0.058 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Mac closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24301 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
IBrowse 2.4oemcloseAmigaOS V53closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:02:55 | by ThaDafinser