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
66 kcal
Score
44 / 100
Soursop has a higher nutrition quality score (44) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
47 vs 66(+40.4%)
Score Diff
22 vs 44(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Soursop
Higher energy
Soursop
Score leader
Soursop
Nutrient split
1 - 12 (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 Soursop 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 Soursop has 66.0 kcal. The difference is 19.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 22 and 44. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
13 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Akça armudu | Soursop | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.07 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.05 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.028 mg | 0.059 mg | +110.7% |
| Bakir | 0.082 mg | 0.086 mg | +4.9% |
| Beta Karoten | 14 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 4.3 mg | 20.6 mg | +379.1% |
| Demir | 0.18 mg | 0.6 mg | +233.3% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.8 g | 3.3 g | +17.9% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 47 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 14 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 11 mg | 27 mg | +145.5% |
| Fruktoz | 6.2 g | — | — |
| Glikoz | 2.8 g | — | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 4.4 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 9 mg | 14 mg | +55.6% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 12.4 g | 16.84 g | +35.8% |
| Kül | — | 0.7 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 7 mg | 21 mg | +200.0% |
| Malik asit | 250 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | — | 0.9 mg | — |
| Pantotenik asit | — | 0.253 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 116 mg | 278 mg | +139.7% |
| Protein | 0.38 g | 1 g | +163.2% |
| Sakkaroz | 1.2 g | — | — |
| Sodyum | — | 14 mg | — |
| Su | 85.5 g | 81.16 g | -5.1% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.052 g | — |
| Toplam Kolin | — | 7.6 mg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.088 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.12 g | 0.3 g | +150.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.086 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 13.54 g | — |
| Çinko | — | 0.1 mg | — |
Scientific answers to key differences between Akça armudu and Soursop.
Akça armudu has less energy per 100 g (47 kcal versus 66 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Akça armudu has 4.3 mg and Soursop has 20.6 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, Soursop 44.
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.