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.
Acuka (Muhammara) has a higher nutrition quality score (20) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
294 vs 135(-54.1%)
Score Diff
20 vs 17(-15.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Acuka (Muhammara)
Higher energy
Acuka (Muhammara)
Score leader
Acuka (Muhammara)
Nutrient split
8 - 4 (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 Sakızlı muhallebi 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 Sakızlı muhallebi has 135.0 kcal. The difference is 159.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 20 and 17. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
12 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Acuka (Muhammara) | Sakızlı muhallebi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 120 µg | 28 µg | -76.7% |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 0.35 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.14 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 1100 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 15 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 1.8 mg | — | — |
| Diyet lifi | 3.5 g | 0.1 g | -97.1% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 3.2 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | — | 565 kj | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 135 kcal | — |
| Folat DFE | 35 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | — | 75 mg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 45 mg | 95 mg | +111.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 15 g | 23.5 g | +56.7% |
| Kolesterol | — | 10 mg | — |
| Laktoz | — | 3.2 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 60 mg | 10 mg | -83.3% |
| Nisasta | — | 5.3 g | — |
| Potasyum | 450 mg | 120 mg | -73.3% |
| Protein | 4.5 g | 2.8 g | -37.8% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 15 g | — |
| Sodyum | 850 mg | 40 mg | -95.3% |
| Su | 48 g | 72.5 g | +51.0% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.8 g | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 12.5 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 24 g | 3.2 g | -86.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 7.5 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 4.8 g | 18.2 g | +279.2% |
| Çinko | 0.9 mg | 0.35 mg | -61.1% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Acuka (Muhammara) and Sakızlı muhallebi.
Sakızlı muhallebi has less energy per 100 g (135 kcal versus 294 kcal).
For measured Toplam Şeker, Acuka (Muhammara) has 4.8 g and Sakızlı muhallebi has 18.2 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: Acuka (Muhammara) 20, Sakızlı muhallebi 17.
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.