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
294 kcal
Score
15 / 100
Fıstık sosu has a higher nutrition quality score (15) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
263 vs 294(+11.8%)
Score Diff
6 vs 15(+150.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Fıstık sosu
Higher energy
Fıstık sosu
Score leader
Fıstık sosu
Nutrient split
2 - 15 (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.
Ahududu reçeli and Fıstık sosu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Ahududu reçeli has 263.0 kcal and Fıstık sosu has 294.0 kcal. The difference is 31.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 6 and 15. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
17 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Ahududu reçeli | Fıstık sosu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 2 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.08 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.09 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| Bakir | 0.04 mg | 0.28 mg | +600.0% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.4 mg | 1.45 mg | +262.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.1 g | 2.8 g | +154.5% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 3.8 mg | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 263 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 5 µg | 52 µg | +940.0% |
| Fosfor | 9 mg | 135 mg | +1400.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 1.2 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 15 mg | 38 mg | +153.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 68 g | 18.5 g | -72.8% |
| Kül | 0.3 g | 3 g | +900.0% |
| Magnezyum | 6 mg | 68 mg | +1033.3% |
| Mangan | 0.15 mg | 0.65 mg | +333.3% |
| Niasin | — | 5.2 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 77 mg | 345 mg | +348.1% |
| Protein | 0.4 g | 8.2 g | +1950.0% |
| Selenyum | — | 4.8 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 12 mg | 720 mg | +5900.0% |
| Su | 30.2 g | 49.5 g | +63.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 4.8 g | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 9.6 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.1 g | 20.8 g | +20700.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 5.1 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 60.3 g | 12.4 g | -79.4% |
| Çinko | 0.08 mg | 1.15 mg | +1337.5% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ahududu reçeli and Fıstık sosu.
Ahududu reçeli has less energy per 100 g (263 kcal versus 294 kcal).
For measured Toplam yağ, Ahududu reçeli has 0.1 g and Fıstık sosu has 20.8 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: Ahududu reçeli 6, Fıstık sosu 15.
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.