User agent detail

IBrowse/2.4 (AmigaOS 3.9; 68K)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
vendor/piwik/device-detector/Tests/fixtures/desktop.yml
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS 3.9desktopcloseclose0 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/desktop/os-amigaos.yaml
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS 3.9desktopclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
IBrowse 2.4 Amiga OS Desktop0.009 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
IBrowse 2.4closeAmiga OS closecloseDesktopclose0.012 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
IBrowse 2.4closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

IBrowse 2.4closeAmiga OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.21901 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS 3.9desktop0.004 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
IBrowse 2.4close closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

IBrowse 2.4closeMacintosh closecloseclosecloseclose0.096 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

No result found
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
IBrowse 2.4 AmigaOS 3.9desktopcloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
IBrowse 2.4closeAmigaOS 3.9closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0 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 08:10:28 | by ThaDafinser