User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/mobile/os-feature.yaml
Gecko 1.7.12 Hiptopmobile:featureclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
No result found
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Mozilla 1.7.12closePalmOS closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.003 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

NetFront closeDangerOS DangerSidekick 4mobile-browseryescloseclose0.22201 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
No result found
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Mozilla 1.7close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

Mozilla 5.0Gecko 1.7.12closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15301 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Mozilla 1.7.12close closecloseclosecloseclose0.06 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Mozilla 1.7.12Gecko 20050920 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23301 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Gecko 1.7.12 DangerHiptopmobile:featureyescloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close DangerSidekick 4Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.02 Detail
Zsxsoft
1.3
No result found

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 08:04:19 | by ThaDafinser