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
235 kcal
Score
30 / 100
Romesco sosu has a higher nutrition quality score (30) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
310 vs 235(-24.2%)
Score Diff
0 vs 30(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Romesco sosu
Higher energy
Agave Şurubu (Mavi Agave)
Score leader
Romesco sosu
Nutrient split
2 - 13 (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.
Agave Şurubu (Mavi Agave) and Romesco sosu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Agave Şurubu (Mavi Agave) has 310.0 kcal and Romesco sosu has 235.0 kcal. The difference is 75.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 0 and 30. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
15 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Agave Şurubu (Mavi Agave) | Romesco sosu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 65 µg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.014 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.02 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 720 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0 mg | 38.5 mg | — |
| Demir | 0.11 mg | 1.3 mg | +1081.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 0.2 g | 2.8 g | +1300.0% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 4.8 mg | — |
| Enerji | 1297 kj | — | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 28 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 1 mg | 65 mg | +6400.0% |
| Fruktoz | 55.6 g | — | — |
| Glikoz | 12.4 g | — | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 0.2 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 1 mg | 52 mg | +5100.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 76.37 g | 9.6 g | -87.4% |
| Kül | 0.09 g | — | — |
| Likopen | — | 1450 µg | — |
| Magnezyum | 1 mg | 34 mg | +3300.0% |
| Mangan | 0.03 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 4 mg | 290 mg | +7150.0% |
| Protein | 0.09 g | 3.4 g | +3677.8% |
| Sakkaroz | 0.1 g | — | — |
| Selenyum | 0.6 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 4 mg | 480 mg | +11900.0% |
| Su | 23 g | 62.5 g | +171.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.05 g | 2.8 g | +5500.0% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 14.5 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.45 g | 21.2 g | +4611.1% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 3.1 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 68.1 g | 3.9 g | -94.3% |
| Çinko | 0.05 mg | 0.65 mg | +1200.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Agave Şurubu (Mavi Agave) and Romesco sosu.
Romesco sosu has less energy per 100 g (235 kcal versus 310 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Agave Şurubu (Mavi Agave) has 4 mg and Romesco sosu has 480 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: Agave Şurubu (Mavi Agave) 0, Romesco sosu 30.
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.