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
213.7 kcal
Score
14 / 100
Agwijjim has a higher nutrition quality score (62) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
79.2 vs 213.7(+169.8%)
Score Diff
62 vs 14(-77.4%)
OVERALL WINNER
Agwijjim
Higher energy
Xiaochi
Score leader
Agwijjim
Nutrient split
11 - 11 (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 Xiaochi 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 Xiaochi has 213.7 kcal. The difference is 134.5 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 62 and 14. 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 | Xiaochi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 42 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.08 mg | 0.16 mg | +100.0% |
| B12 Vitamini | 1.15 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.11 mg | 0.12 mg | +9.1% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.22 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8.2 mg | 2.5 mg | -69.5% |
| Demir | 0.9 mg | 1.6 mg | +77.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.5 g | 1.8 g | +20.0% |
| Folat DFE | — | 38 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 135 mg | 95 mg | -29.6% |
| Kalsiyum | 34 mg | 28 mg | -17.6% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 5.4 g | 26.5 g | +390.7% |
| Kolesterol | 38 mg | 18 mg | -52.6% |
| Kül | 1.7 g | 1.9 g | +11.8% |
| Magnezyum | 28 mg | 18 mg | -35.7% |
| Niasin | 2.4 mg | 2.1 mg | -12.5% |
| Potasyum | 340 mg | 165 mg | -51.5% |
| Protein | 10.8 g | 7.8 g | -27.8% |
| Selenyum | 18.5 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 520 mg | 480 mg | -7.7% |
| Su | 81.5 g | 53.5 g | -34.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.32 g | 2.4 g | +650.0% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.45 g | 3.8 g | +744.4% |
| Toplam yağ | 1.6 g | 8.5 g | +431.3% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.58 g | 1.7 g | +193.1% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.8 g | 1.5 g | -16.7% |
| Çinko | 0.75 mg | 1.1 mg | +46.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Agwijjim and Xiaochi.
Agwijjim has less energy per 100 g (79.2 kcal versus 213.7 kcal).
For measured Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri, Agwijjim has 0.45 g and Xiaochi has 3.8 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, Xiaochi 14.
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.