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
379 kcal
Score
27 / 100
Adzuki fasulyesi has a higher nutrition quality score (41) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
329 vs 379(+15.2%)
Score Diff
41 vs 27(-34.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Adzuki fasulyesi
Higher energy
Yulaf Ezmesi
Score leader
Adzuki fasulyesi
Nutrient split
13 - 8 (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.
Adzuki fasulyesi and Yulaf Ezmesi are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Adzuki fasulyesi has 329.0 kcal and Yulaf Ezmesi has 379.0 kcal. The difference is 50.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 41 and 27. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
21 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Adzuki fasulyesi | Yulaf Ezmesi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.455 mg | 0.46 mg | +1.1% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.22 mg | 0.15 mg | -31.8% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.351 mg | 0.1 mg | -71.5% |
| Bakir | 1.09 mg | 0.49 mg | -55.0% |
| Beta-glukan | — | 4 g | — |
| Demir | 4.98 mg | 4.25 mg | -14.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 12.7 g | 10.1 g | -20.5% |
| Folat DFE | — | 32 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 381 mg | 410 mg | +7.6% |
| Kalsiyum | 66 mg | 52 mg | -21.2% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 62.96 g | 67.7 g | +7.5% |
| Kül | 3.82 g | 1.74 g | -54.5% |
| Magnezyum | 127 mg | 138 mg | +8.7% |
| Mangan | 1.73 mg | 3.63 mg | +109.8% |
| Niasin | 2.63 mg | 1.12 mg | -57.4% |
| Pantotenik asit | 1.47 mg | 1.12 mg | -23.8% |
| Potasyum | 1254 mg | 362 mg | -71.1% |
| Protein | 19.87 g | 13.15 g | -33.8% |
| Selenyum | 3.2 µg | 28.9 µg | +803.1% |
| Sodyum | 5 mg | 6 mg | +20.0% |
| Su | 16.32 g | 10.84 g | -33.6% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 1.11 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 622 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 2.18 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.53 g | 6.52 g | +1130.2% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 2.43 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 0.99 g | — |
| Çinko | 5.04 mg | 3.64 mg | -27.8% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Adzuki fasulyesi and Yulaf Ezmesi.
Adzuki fasulyesi has less energy per 100 g (329 kcal versus 379 kcal).
For measured Toplam yağ, Adzuki fasulyesi has 0.53 g and Yulaf Ezmesi has 6.52 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: Adzuki fasulyesi 41, Yulaf Ezmesi 27.
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.