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
60 kcal
Score
33 / 100
Kent mango has a higher nutrition quality score (33) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
69 vs 60(-13.0%)
Score Diff
18 vs 33(+83.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kent mango
Higher energy
Alphonse üzümü
Score leader
Kent mango
Nutrient split
9 - 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.
Alphonse üzümü and Kent mango are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Alphonse üzümü has 69.0 kcal and Kent mango has 60.0 kcal. The difference is 9.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 18 and 33. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
20 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Alphonse üzümü | Kent mango | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 3 µg | 54 µg | +1700.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.069 mg | 0.028 mg | -59.4% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.07 mg | 0.038 mg | -45.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.086 mg | 0.119 mg | +38.4% |
| Bakir | 0.127 mg | 0.111 mg | -12.6% |
| Beta Karoten | — | 640 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 3.2 mg | 36.4 mg | +1037.5% |
| Demir | 0.36 mg | 0.16 mg | -55.6% |
| Diyet lifi | 0.9 g | 1.6 g | +77.8% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.9 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 43 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 20 mg | 14 mg | -30.0% |
| Fruktoz | — | 4.68 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.01 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 14.6 µg | 4.2 µg | -71.2% |
| Kalsiyum | 10 mg | 11 mg | +10.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 18.1 g | 14.98 g | -17.2% |
| Kül | — | 0.36 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 7 mg | 10 mg | +42.9% |
| Mangan | 0.071 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.188 mg | 0.669 mg | +255.9% |
| Potasyum | 191 mg | 168 mg | -12.0% |
| Protein | 0.72 g | 0.82 g | +13.9% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 6.97 g | — |
| Sodyum | — | 1 mg | — |
| Su | 80.54 g | 83.46 g | +3.6% |
| Toplam Folat | 2 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.16 g | 0.38 g | +137.5% |
| Toplam Şeker | 15.48 g | 13.66 g | -11.8% |
| Çinko | 0.07 mg | 0.09 mg | +28.6% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Alphonse üzümü and Kent mango.
Kent mango has less energy per 100 g (60 kcal versus 69 kcal).
For measured A Vitamini (RAE), Alphonse üzümü has 3 µg and Kent mango has 54 µg 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: Alphonse üzümü 18, Kent mango 33.
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.