User agent detail

Cyberduck/4.6.4 (16610) (Windows XP/5.1) (x86)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-562.php
yesCyberduckBot/Crawler0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
yesCyberduckBot/Crawler0.004 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
close closecloseyesCyberduckclose0.016 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Cyberduck 4.6.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeWindows closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

closeWindows 5.1desktop-browsercloseclose0.20701 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Windows XPdesktop0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
closeWindows XP closeclosecloseclose0.005 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

closeclosecloseDesktopclosecloseclose0.15201 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Windows Windows NT 5.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23401 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Windows XPdesktopcloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
closeWindows XPcloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:03:37 | by ThaDafinser