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
80 kcal
Score
89 / 100
Tatlı su midyesi has a higher nutrition quality score (89) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
164 vs 80(-51.2%)
Score Diff
84 vs 89(+6.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Tatlı su midyesi
Higher energy
Ahtapot (Izgara)
Score leader
Tatlı su midyesi
Nutrient split
16 - 1 (tie: 1)
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.
Ahtapot (Izgara) and Tatlı su midyesi are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Ahtapot (Izgara) has 164.0 kcal and Tatlı su midyesi has 80.0 kcal. The difference is 84.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 84 and 89. 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 | Ahtapot (Izgara) | Tatlı su midyesi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 90 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.08 mg | — |
| B12 Vitamini | 36 µg | 12 µg | -66.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.65 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.74 mg | 0.28 mg | -62.2% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8 mg | 6 mg | -25.0% |
| Demir | 9.54 mg | 6.8 mg | -28.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 0 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 2.1 mg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 279 mg | 184 mg | -34.1% |
| Kalsiyum | 106 mg | 92 mg | -13.2% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 4.4 g | 4.1 g | -6.8% |
| Kolesterol | 96 mg | 50 mg | -47.9% |
| Kül | 3.2 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 60 mg | 34 mg | -43.3% |
| Niasin | 3.78 mg | 1.6 mg | -57.7% |
| Potasyum | 630 mg | 268 mg | -57.5% |
| Protein | 29.82 g | 11.9 g | -60.1% |
| Selenyum | 89.6 µg | 48.5 µg | -45.9% |
| Sodyum | 460 mg | 240 mg | -47.8% |
| Su | 60.5 g | 81.2 g | +34.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.45 g | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.32 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 2.08 g | 1.8 g | -13.5% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.51 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 3.36 mg | 1.9 mg | -43.5% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ahtapot (Izgara) and Tatlı su midyesi.
Tatlı su midyesi has less energy per 100 g (80 kcal versus 164 kcal).
For measured B12 Vitamini, Ahtapot (Izgara) has 36 µg and Tatlı su midyesi has 12 µg 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: Ahtapot (Izgara) 84, Tatlı su midyesi 89.
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.