User agent detail

Cinnamon/1.0.0.0, GFHD100/gfibertv-42-pre0-140-gf65a138-sm (Google Fiber, GFHD100, wired)
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Test suite
WhichBrowser
v2.0.18
vendor/whichbrowser/parser/tests/data/television/google.yaml
TV Boxtelevisionclosecloseclose0 Detail
Providers
BrowscapFull
6014
No result found
BrowscapLite
6014
No result found
BrowscapPhp
6014
No result found
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.1
Cinnamon 1.0.0.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
JenssegersAgent
v2.3.3
No result found
NeutrinoApiCom

close media-playercloseclose0.19801 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.6.1
No result found
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
Google FiberTV Box Smart TVtelevisioncloseclose0.004 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.7.1.0
No result found
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 08:11:34 | by ThaDafinser