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
165 kcal
Score
12 / 100
Yaban turpu sosu has a higher nutrition quality score (12) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
263 vs 165(-37.3%)
Score Diff
6 vs 12(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yaban turpu sosu
Higher energy
Ahududu reçeli
Score leader
Yaban turpu sosu
Nutrient split
3 - 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.
Ahududu reçeli and Yaban turpu 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 Yaban turpu sosu has 165.0 kcal. The difference is 98.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 6 and 12. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
14 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Ahududu reçeli | Yaban turpu sosu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 2 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.05 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.04 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.08 mg | — |
| Bakir | 0.04 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8 mg | 7 mg | -12.5% |
| Demir | 0.4 mg | 0.8 mg | +100.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.1 g | 1.8 g | +63.6% |
| Enerji | — | 690.84 kj | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 263 kcal | 165 kcal | -37.3% |
| Folat DFE | 5 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 9 mg | — | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 1.2 µg | 12 µg | +900.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 15 mg | 35 mg | +133.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 68 g | — | — |
| Karbonhidrat (toplamla) | — | 14 g | — |
| Kül | 0.3 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 6 mg | 15 mg | +150.0% |
| Mangan | 0.15 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | — | 0.3 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 77 mg | 160 mg | +107.8% |
| Protein | 0.4 g | 1.5 g | +275.0% |
| Sodyum | 12 mg | 550 mg | +4483.3% |
| Su | 30.2 g | 65 g | +115.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 2.5 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | — | 10 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 4.5 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.1 g | 12 g | +11900.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 4 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 60.3 g | 8 g | -86.7% |
| Çinko | 0.08 mg | 0.2 mg | +150.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ahududu reçeli and Yaban turpu sosu.
Yaban turpu sosu has less energy per 100 g (165 kcal versus 263 kcal).
For measured Toplam yağ, Ahududu reçeli has 0.1 g and Yaban turpu sosu has 12 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, Yaban turpu sosu 12.
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.