User agent detail

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Haiku R1 x86; xx) AppleWebKit/536.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) WebPositive/1.1 Safari/536.10
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/desktop/os-haiku.yaml
WebPositive 1.1Webkit 536.10Haiku desktopclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Safari 536.10closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Safari 536.10close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Safari 536.10close desktop-browsercloseclose0.20301 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
WebPositive WebKit Haiku OS desktop0.005 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Safari close closecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
Safari close closeclosecloseclose0.004 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

Safari closeHaiku closecloseclosecloseclose0.11901 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Safari WebKit 536.10 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.24101 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
WebPositive 1.1Webkit 536.10Haiku desktopcloseclose0.001 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari closecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
Safari close closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:08:08 | by ThaDafinser