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
57 kcal
Score
19 / 100
Williams armudu has a higher nutrition quality score (19) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
277 vs 57(-79.4%)
Score Diff
14 vs 19(+35.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Williams armudu
Higher energy
Acve Hurması
Score leader
Williams armudu
Nutrient split
16 - 2 (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 Williams armudu 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 Williams armudu has 57.0 kcal. The difference is 220.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 14 and 19. 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 | Acve Hurması | Williams armudu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 1 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.05 mg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.06 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.25 mg | 0.029 mg | -88.4% |
| Bakir | 0.36 mg | 0.082 mg | -77.2% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0.4 mg | 4.3 mg | +975.0% |
| Demir | 1 mg | 0.18 mg | -82.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 7 g | 3.1 g | -55.7% |
| Fosfor | 62 mg | 12 mg | -80.6% |
| Fruktoz | 31.5 g | 6.23 g | -80.2% |
| Glikoz | 31.8 g | 2.81 g | -91.2% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 4.4 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 64 mg | 9 mg | -85.9% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 75 g | 15.23 g | -79.7% |
| Kül | — | 0.31 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 54 mg | 7 mg | -87.0% |
| Mangan | 0.26 mg | 0.048 mg | -81.5% |
| Niasin | 1.6 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 656 mg | 116 mg | -82.3% |
| Protein | 2.5 g | 0.36 g | -85.6% |
| Sodyum | 1 mg | — | — |
| Su | 21.3 g | 83.96 g | +294.2% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 7 µg | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.4 g | 0.14 g | -65.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 63.3 g | 9.75 g | -84.6% |
| Çinko | 0.44 mg | 0.1 mg | -77.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Acve Hurması and Williams armudu.
Williams armudu has less energy per 100 g (57 kcal versus 277 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Acve Hurması has 0.4 mg and Williams armudu has 4.3 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, Williams armudu 19.
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.