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
47 kcal
Score
36 / 100
Portakal (Washington) has a higher nutrition quality score (36) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
277 vs 47(-83.0%)
Score Diff
14 vs 36(+157.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Portakal (Washington)
Higher energy
Acve Hurması
Score leader
Portakal (Washington)
Nutrient split
16 - 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.
Acve Hurması and Portakal (Washington) are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Acve Hurması has 277.0 kcal and Portakal (Washington) has 47.0 kcal. The difference is 230.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 14 and 36. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
19 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Acve Hurması | Portakal (Washington) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 11 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.05 mg | 0.087 mg | +74.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.06 mg | 0.04 mg | -33.3% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.25 mg | 0.06 mg | -76.0% |
| Bakir | 0.36 mg | 0.045 mg | -87.5% |
| Beta Karoten | — | 71 µg | — |
| Beta kriptoksantin | — | 116 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0.4 mg | 53.2 mg | +13200.0% |
| Demir | 1 mg | 0.1 mg | -90.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 7 g | 2.4 g | -65.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| Fosfor | 62 mg | 14 mg | -77.4% |
| Fruktoz | 31.5 g | — | — |
| Glikoz | 31.8 g | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 64 mg | 40 mg | -37.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 75 g | 11.75 g | -84.3% |
| Kül | — | 0.44 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 54 mg | 10 mg | -81.5% |
| Mangan | 0.26 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 1.6 mg | 0.282 mg | -82.4% |
| Potasyum | 656 mg | 181 mg | -72.4% |
| Protein | 2.5 g | 0.94 g | -62.4% |
| Sodyum | 1 mg | 0 mg | -100.0% |
| Su | 21.3 g | 86.75 g | +307.3% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 30 µg | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.4 g | 0.12 g | -70.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 63.3 g | 9.35 g | -85.2% |
| Çinko | 0.44 mg | 0.07 mg | -84.1% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Acve Hurması and Portakal (Washington).
Portakal (Washington) has less energy per 100 g (47 kcal versus 277 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Acve Hurması has 0.4 mg and Portakal (Washington) has 53.2 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: Acve Hurması 14, Portakal (Washington) 36.
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.