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
304 kcal
Score
2 / 100
Ahududu reçeli has a higher nutrition quality score (6) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
263 vs 304(+15.6%)
Score Diff
6 vs 2(-66.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Ahududu reçeli
Higher energy
Ihlamur Balı
Score leader
Ahududu reçeli
Nutrient split
13 - 4 (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 Ihlamur Balı 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 Ihlamur Balı has 304.0 kcal. The difference is 41.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 6 and 2. 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 | Ihlamur Balı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 2 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.038 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.024 mg | — |
| Bakir | 0.04 mg | 0.036 mg | -10.0% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8 mg | 0.5 mg | -93.8% |
| Demir | 0.4 mg | 0.42 mg | +5.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.1 g | 0.2 g | -81.8% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 263 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 5 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 9 mg | 4 mg | -55.6% |
| Fruktoz | — | 39.5 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 34 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 1.2 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 15 mg | 6 mg | -60.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 68 g | 82.4 g | +21.2% |
| Kül | 0.3 g | 0.2 g | -33.3% |
| Magnezyum | 6 mg | 2 mg | -66.7% |
| Maltoz | — | 5.8 g | — |
| Mangan | 0.15 mg | 0.08 mg | -46.7% |
| Niasin | — | 0.12 mg | — |
| Pantotenik asit | — | 0.068 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 77 mg | 52 mg | -32.5% |
| Protein | 0.4 g | 0.3 g | -25.0% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 1.5 g | — |
| Selenyum | — | 0.8 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 12 mg | 4 mg | -66.7% |
| Su | 30.2 g | 17.1 g | -43.4% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 2 µg | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.1 g | 0 g | -100.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 60.3 g | 82.12 g | +36.2% |
| Çinko | 0.08 mg | 0.22 mg | +175.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ahududu reçeli and Ihlamur Balı.
Ahududu reçeli has less energy per 100 g (263 kcal versus 304 kcal).
For measured Çinko, Ahududu reçeli has 0.08 mg and Ihlamur Balı has 0.22 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: Ahududu reçeli 6, Ihlamur Balı 2.
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.