User agent detail

Spice QT-75
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
Browscap
6014
vendor/browscap/browscap/tests/fixtures/issues/issue-865.php
WAP Browser 0.0unknown unknownJAVA unknownSpiceQT-75Mobile Phoneyes0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
WAP Browser JAVA SpiceQT-75Mobile Phoneyes0.005 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Spice closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

close SpiceQT-75mobile-browseryescloseclose0.21101 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
SpiceQT-75smartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

No result found
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
SpiceQT-75mobile:featureyescloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
close SpiceQT-75Feature 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 08:06:31 | by ThaDafinser