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
83 / 100
Pawpaw has a higher nutrition quality score (83) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
47 vs 80(+70.2%)
Score Diff
22 vs 83(+277.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Pawpaw
Higher energy
Pawpaw
Score leader
Pawpaw
Nutrient split
2 - 10 (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.
Akça armudu and Pawpaw are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Akça armudu has 47.0 kcal and Pawpaw has 80.0 kcal. The difference is 33.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 22 and 83. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
12 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Akça armudu | Pawpaw | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 87 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.01 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.09 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.028 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.082 mg | 0.5 mg | +509.8% |
| Beta Karoten | 14 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 4.3 mg | 18.3 mg | +325.6% |
| Demir | 0.18 mg | 7 mg | +3788.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.8 g | 2.6 g | -7.1% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 47 kcal | — | — |
| Fosfor | 11 mg | 47 mg | +327.3% |
| Fruktoz | 6.2 g | — | — |
| Glikoz | 2.8 g | — | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 4.4 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 9 mg | 63 mg | +600.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 12.4 g | 18.8 g | +51.6% |
| Kül | — | 1.5 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 7 mg | 113 mg | +1514.3% |
| Malik asit | 250 mg | — | — |
| Mangan | — | 2.6 mg | — |
| Niasin | — | 1.1 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 116 mg | 345 mg | +197.4% |
| Protein | 0.38 g | 1.2 g | +215.8% |
| Sakkaroz | 1.2 g | — | — |
| Sodyum | — | 12 mg | — |
| Su | 85.5 g | 76.7 g | -10.3% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.12 g | 1.2 g | +900.0% |
| Çinko | — | 0.9 mg | — |
Scientific answers to key differences between Akça armudu and Pawpaw.
Akça armudu has less energy per 100 g (47 kcal versus 80 kcal).
For measured Demir, Akça armudu has 0.18 mg and Pawpaw has 7 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: Akça armudu 22, Pawpaw 83.
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.