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
260 kcal
Score
9 / 100
Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple) has a higher nutrition quality score (9) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
22 vs 260(+1081.8%)
Score Diff
0 vs 9(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple)
Higher energy
Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple)
Score leader
Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple)
Nutrient split
8 - 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.
Acı sos and Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple) are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Acı sos has 22.0 kcal and Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple) has 260.0 kcal. The difference is 238.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 0 and 9. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
14 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Acı sos | Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 42 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.006 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 1.27 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.16 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | — | 0.07 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 498 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 34.8 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.48 mg | 0.11 mg | -77.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.4 g | 0 g | -100.0% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 1.45 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | — | 1088 kj | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 260 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 18 mg | 2 mg | -88.9% |
| Fruktoz | — | 1 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 1 g | — |
| Kalsiyum | 14 mg | 102 mg | +628.6% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 3.7 g | 67.04 g | +1711.9% |
| Kül | 5.73 g | 0.46 g | -92.0% |
| Magnezyum | 11 mg | 21 mg | +90.9% |
| Mangan | — | 2.91 mg | — |
| Niasin | 0.82 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 164 mg | 212 mg | +29.3% |
| Protein | 0.95 g | 0.04 g | -95.8% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 58 g | — |
| Sodyum | 2640 mg | 12 mg | -99.5% |
| Su | 89.2 g | 32.4 g | -63.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.08 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | 10 µg | — | — |
| Toplam Kolin | — | 1.6 mg | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.42 g | 0.06 g | -85.7% |
| Toplam Şeker | 2.1 g | 60.46 g | +2779.0% |
| Çinko | 0.22 mg | 1.47 mg | +568.2% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Acı sos and Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple).
Acı sos has less energy per 100 g (22 kcal versus 260 kcal).
For measured Toplam Şeker, Acı sos has 2.1 g and Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple) has 60.46 g 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: Acı sos 0, Saf Akçaağaç Şurubu (Maple) 9.
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.