User agent detail

opera/9.80, DI384 TKC/0.5.20(Sagemcom_Broadband_SAS,DI384_UHD_TKC,Wired)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/television/other.yaml
Opera Devices DI384televisionclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Opera 9.80closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
Opera close closeclosecloseyescloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

Opera 9.80close media-playercloseclose0.19901 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
Opera 9.80Presto Sagemsmartphoneyes0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
Opera 9.80,close closecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
No result found
UserAgentApiCom

Opera 9.80 closeclosecloseMobileclosecloseclose0.15101 Detail
UserAgentStringCom

Opera 9.80close closecloseclosecloseclose0.069 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Opera 9.80 closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23201 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
Opera Devices SagemcomDI384televisioncloseclose0.002 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
Opera 9.80close 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 08:10:14 | by ThaDafinser