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
318 kcal
Score
54 / 100
Kuru sumak has a higher nutrition quality score (54) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
373 vs 318(-14.8%)
Score Diff
43 vs 54(+25.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kuru sumak
Higher energy
Achiote
Score leader
Kuru sumak
Nutrient split
12 - 5 (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 Kuru sumak 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 Kuru sumak has 318.0 kcal. The difference is 55.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 43 and 54. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
17 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Achiote | Kuru sumak | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 100 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.25 mg | 0.12 mg | -52.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.4 mg | 0.22 mg | -45.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.35 mg | 0.25 mg | -28.6% |
| Bakir | 0.5 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | 1200 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2 mg | 39 mg | +1850.0% |
| Demir | 6.5 mg | 12.4 mg | +90.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 16.5 g | 41.5 g | +151.5% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.5 mg | — | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 373 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 120 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 250 mg | 105 mg | -58.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 355 mg | 315 mg | -11.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | — | 68 g | — |
| Karbonhidrat (toplamla) | 60.3 g | — | — |
| Kül | 6.48 g | 5 g | -22.8% |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | 50 µg | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 280 mg | 78 mg | -72.1% |
| Malik asit | — | 1450 mg | — |
| Mangan | 1.5 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 3 mg | 1.8 mg | -40.0% |
| Potasyum | 1250 mg | 920 mg | -26.4% |
| Protein | 12.86 g | 4.8 g | -62.7% |
| Selenyum | 5 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 20 mg | 35 mg | +75.0% |
| Su | 8 g | 8.5 g | +6.3% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 2.3 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | — | 22 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 4.3 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 12.36 g | 10.2 g | -17.5% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 2.8 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 4.2 g | — |
| Çinko | 2.5 mg | 1.45 mg | -42.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Achiote and Kuru sumak.
Kuru sumak has less energy per 100 g (318 kcal versus 373 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Achiote has 2 mg and Kuru sumak has 39 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, Kuru sumak 54.
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.