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.
Akçaağaç tohumu has a higher nutrition quality score (29) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
418 vs 354(-15.3%)
Score Diff
29 vs 17(-41.4%)
OVERALL WINNER
Akçaağaç tohumu
Higher energy
Akçaağaç tohumu
Score leader
Akçaağaç tohumu
Nutrient split
15 - 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.
Akçaağaç tohumu and Hindistan cevizi rendesi are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Akçaağaç tohumu has 418.0 kcal and Hindistan cevizi rendesi has 354.0 kcal. The difference is 64.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 29 and 17. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
19 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Akçaağaç tohumu | Hindistan cevizi rendesi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.35 mg | 0.066 mg | -81.1% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.18 mg | 0.01 mg | -94.4% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.42 mg | 0.054 mg | -87.1% |
| Bakir | 0.85 mg | 0.444 mg | -47.8% |
| Besin folati | — | 26 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2.4 mg | 3.3 mg | +37.5% |
| Demir | 4.8 mg | 2.43 mg | -49.4% |
| Diyet lifi | 11.5 g | 9 g | -21.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.28 mg | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 354 kcal | — |
| Folat DFE | 62 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 390 mg | 113 mg | -71.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 145 mg | — | — |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 38.6 g | — | — |
| Karbonhidrat (toplamla) | — | 15.23 g | — |
| Kül | 3.7 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 180 mg | 89 mg | -50.6% |
| Mangan | 2.6 mg | 1.48 mg | -43.1% |
| Niasin | 2.1 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 650 mg | 356 mg | -45.2% |
| Protein | 22.4 g | 3.33 g | -85.1% |
| Selenyum | — | 10 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 9 mg | — | — |
| Su | 18.5 g | 3 g | -83.8% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.1 g | 29.69 g | +1313.8% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 6.5 g | 1.43 g | -78.0% |
| Toplam yağ | 16.8 g | 33.48 g | +99.3% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 7.2 g | 0.37 g | -94.9% |
| Toplam Şeker | 4.2 g | 6.23 g | +48.3% |
| Çinko | 3.2 mg | 1.1 mg | -65.6% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Akçaağaç tohumu and Hindistan cevizi rendesi.
Hindistan cevizi rendesi has less energy per 100 g (354 kcal versus 418 kcal).
For measured Toplam doymus yağ asitleri, Akçaağaç tohumu has 2.1 g and Hindistan cevizi rendesi has 29.69 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: Akçaağaç tohumu 29, Hindistan cevizi rendesi 17.
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.