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
195.6 kcal
Score
20 / 100
Agwijjim has a higher nutrition quality score (62) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
79.2 vs 195.6(+147.0%)
Score Diff
62 vs 20(-67.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Agwijjim
Higher energy
Tangbao
Score leader
Agwijjim
Nutrient split
14 - 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.
Agwijjim and Tangbao are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Agwijjim has 79.2 kcal and Tangbao has 195.6 kcal. The difference is 116.4 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 62 and 20. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
22 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Agwijjim | Tangbao | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 42 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.08 mg | 0.16 mg | +100.0% |
| B12 Vitamini | 1.15 µg | 0.35 µg | -69.6% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.11 mg | 0.09 mg | -18.2% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.22 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8.2 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.9 mg | 1.3 mg | +44.4% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.5 g | 1 g | -33.3% |
| Fosfor | 135 mg | 85 mg | -37.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 34 mg | 18 mg | -47.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 5.4 g | 20.8 g | +285.2% |
| Kolesterol | 38 mg | 28 mg | -26.3% |
| Kül | 1.7 g | 1.35 g | -20.6% |
| Magnezyum | 28 mg | 14 mg | -50.0% |
| Niasin | 2.4 mg | 1.75 mg | -27.1% |
| Potasyum | 340 mg | 145 mg | -57.4% |
| Protein | 10.8 g | 9.2 g | -14.8% |
| Selenyum | 18.5 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 520 mg | 415 mg | -20.2% |
| Su | 81.5 g | 59.2 g | -27.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.32 g | 2.85 g | +790.6% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 24 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.45 g | 3.75 g | +733.3% |
| Toplam yağ | 1.6 g | 8.4 g | +425.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.58 g | 1.15 g | +98.3% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.8 g | 1.2 g | -33.3% |
| Çinko | 0.75 mg | 1.15 mg | +53.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Agwijjim and Tangbao.
Agwijjim has less energy per 100 g (79.2 kcal versus 195.6 kcal).
For measured Toplam doymus yağ asitleri, Agwijjim has 0.32 g and Tangbao has 2.85 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: Agwijjim 62, Tangbao 20.
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.