Compare two different foods side-by-side by nutrients, energy, and quality scores.
The CSV contains energy and nutrients per 100 g for these two records only. Missing measurements remain blank rather than zero. Model scores and personal health conclusions are not exported.
Share your experiences or ask your questions.
Energy
49 kcal
Score
88 / 100
Çemen otu yaprağı has a higher nutrition quality score (88) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
373 vs 49(-86.9%)
Score Diff
43 vs 88(+104.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çemen otu yaprağı
Higher energy
Achiote
Score leader
Çemen otu yaprağı
Nutrient split
14 - 6 (tie: 0)
This chart shows energy per 100 g for both foods.
Each axis is normalized to 0-100; the outer shape indicates relative dominance on that nutrient.
Green/blue bars indicate first food advantage, orange bars indicate second food advantage.
Achiote and Çemen otu yaprağı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Achiote has 373.0 kcal and Çemen otu yaprağı has 49.0 kcal. The difference is 324.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 43 and 88. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
20 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Achiote | Çemen otu yaprağı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 100 µg | 215 µg | +115.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.25 mg | 0.05 mg | -80.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.4 mg | 0.31 mg | -22.5% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.35 mg | 0.12 mg | -65.7% |
| Bakir | 0.5 mg | 0.18 mg | -64.0% |
| Beta Karoten | 1200 µg | 2580 µg | +115.0% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2 mg | 52 mg | +2500.0% |
| Demir | 6.5 mg | 3.2 mg | -50.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 16.5 g | 2.5 g | -84.8% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.5 mg | — | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 373 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 120 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 250 mg | 51 mg | -79.6% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 160 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 355 mg | 395 mg | +11.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | — | 6 g | — |
| Karbonhidrat (toplamla) | 60.3 g | — | — |
| Kül | 6.48 g | 1.5 g | -76.9% |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | 50 µg | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 280 mg | 54 mg | -80.7% |
| Mangan | 1.5 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 3 mg | 0.85 mg | -71.7% |
| Potasyum | 1250 mg | 380 mg | -69.6% |
| Protein | 12.86 g | 4.4 g | -65.8% |
| Selenyum | 5 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 20 mg | 42 mg | +110.0% |
| Su | 8 g | 86.2 g | +977.5% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 84 µg | — |
| Toplam yağ | 12.36 g | 0.9 g | -92.7% |
| Çinko | 2.5 mg | 0.42 mg | -83.2% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Achiote and Çemen otu yaprağı.
Çemen otu yaprağı has less energy per 100 g (49 kcal versus 373 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Achiote has 2 mg and Çemen otu yaprağı has 52 mg per 100 g. The table shows other nutrients separately.
The score summarizes this site's nutrient model. It does not establish that one food is healthier or suitable for everyone. Scores: Achiote 43, Çemen otu yaprağı 88.
Energy and nutrient values in the table are per 100 g. Actual intake changes with serving size.
Data Sources
Records may come from different sources. Check each food page for source and preparation details; do not treat missing measurements as zero.
Analytical Methodology
The scoring algorithm is a scale of 100 based on nutrient density and macro/micro component balance.