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
165.4 kcal
Score
54 / 100
Çibörek İçi has a higher nutrition quality score (54) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
294 vs 165.4(-43.7%)
Score Diff
20 vs 54(+170.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çibörek İçi
Higher energy
Acuka (Muhammara)
Score leader
Çibörek İçi
Nutrient split
11 - 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.
Acuka (Muhammara) and Çibörek İçi are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Acuka (Muhammara) has 294.0 kcal and Çibörek İçi has 165.4 kcal. The difference is 128.6 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 20 and 54. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
16 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Acuka (Muhammara) | Çibörek İçi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 120 µg | — | — |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 1.62 µg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.23 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 1100 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 15 mg | 2.2 mg | -85.3% |
| Demir | 1.8 mg | 1.85 mg | +2.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.5 g | 0.5 g | -85.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 3.2 mg | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 35 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | — | 138 mg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 45 mg | 19 mg | -57.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 15 g | 2.1 g | -86.0% |
| Kolesterol | — | 47 mg | — |
| Kül | — | 1.4 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 60 mg | 16.5 mg | -72.5% |
| Niasin | — | 3.65 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 450 mg | 268 mg | -40.4% |
| Protein | 4.5 g | 14.3 g | +217.8% |
| Selenyum | — | 15.6 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 850 mg | 295 mg | -65.3% |
| Su | 48 g | 71 g | +47.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.8 g | 4.5 g | +60.7% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 12.5 g | 4.9 g | -60.8% |
| Toplam yağ | 24 g | 11.2 g | -53.3% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 7.5 g | 0.6 g | -92.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 4.8 g | 1.1 g | -77.1% |
| Çinko | 0.9 mg | 3.45 mg | +283.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Acuka (Muhammara) and Çibörek İçi.
Çibörek İçi has less energy per 100 g (165.4 kcal versus 294 kcal).
For measured Çinko, Acuka (Muhammara) has 0.9 mg and Çibörek İçi has 3.45 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: Acuka (Muhammara) 20, Çibörek İçi 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.