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
114 kcal
Score
0 / 100
Achiote has a higher nutrition quality score (43) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
373 vs 114(-69.4%)
Score Diff
43 vs 0(-100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Achiote
Higher energy
Achiote
Score leader
Achiote
Nutrient split
15 - 3 (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 Soğanlı tuz 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 Soğanlı tuz has 114.0 kcal. The difference is 259.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 43 and 0. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
18 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Achiote | Soğanlı tuz | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 100 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.25 mg | 0.09 mg | -64.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.4 mg | 0.04 mg | -90.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.35 mg | 0.32 mg | -8.6% |
| Bakir | 0.5 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | 1200 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2 mg | 3.2 mg | +60.0% |
| Demir | 6.5 mg | 1.1 mg | -83.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 16.5 g | 4 g | -75.8% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.5 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | — | 477 kj | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 373 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 120 µg | 18 µg | -85.0% |
| Fosfor | 250 mg | 85 mg | -66.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 355 mg | 95 mg | -73.2% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | — | 25.1 g | — |
| Karbonhidrat (toplamla) | 60.3 g | — | — |
| Kül | 6.48 g | 67.05 g | +934.7% |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | 50 µg | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 280 mg | 28 mg | -90.0% |
| Mangan | 1.5 mg | 0.28 mg | -81.3% |
| Niasin | 3 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 1250 mg | 370 mg | -70.4% |
| Protein | 12.86 g | 3.6 g | -72.0% |
| Selenyum | 5 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 20 mg | 26200 mg | +130900.0% |
| Su | 8 g | 3.9 g | -51.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.08 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 12.36 g | 0.35 g | -97.2% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 11.2 g | — |
| Çinko | 2.5 mg | 0.45 mg | -82.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Achiote and Soğanlı tuz.
Soğanlı tuz has less energy per 100 g (114 kcal versus 373 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Achiote has 20 mg and Soğanlı tuz has 26200 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, Soğanlı tuz 0.
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.