User agent detail

IBrowse/2.5beta (AmigaOS 4.1; PPC)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/desktop/os-amigaos.yaml
IBrowse 2.5 AmigaOS 4.1desktopclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
yesAmigaBot/Crawler0.014 Detail
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
close closecloseyesAmigaclose0.031 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
IBrowse 2.5betacloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
closeMacintosh closecloseclosecloseclose0.006 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom

IBrowse 2.5betacloseAmiga OS desktop-browsercloseclose0.21101 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
IBrowse 2.5 AmigaOS 4.1desktop0.003 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.1
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
IBrowse 2.5close closeclosecloseclose0.002 Detail
UserAgentApiCom

No result found
UserAgentStringCom

IBrowse 2.5betacloseAmigaOS 4.1closecloseclosecloseclose0.15201 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom

Mac closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.23301 Detail
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
IBrowse 2.5 AmigaOS 4.1desktopcloseclose0.003 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
Zsxsoft
1.3
IBrowse 2.5betacloseAmigaOS 4.1closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 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 08:11:27 | by ThaDafinser