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
57 kcal
Score
19 / 100
Williams armudu has a higher nutrition quality score (19) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
69 vs 57(-17.4%)
Score Diff
18 vs 19(+5.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Williams armudu
Higher energy
Alphonse üzümü
Score leader
Williams armudu
Nutrient split
13 - 5 (tie: 1)
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 Williams armudu 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 Williams armudu has 57.0 kcal. The difference is 12.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 18 and 19. 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 | Alphonse üzümü | Williams armudu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 3 µg | 1 µg | -66.7% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.069 mg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.07 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.086 mg | 0.029 mg | -66.3% |
| Bakir | 0.127 mg | 0.082 mg | -35.4% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 3.2 mg | 4.3 mg | +34.4% |
| Demir | 0.36 mg | 0.18 mg | -50.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 0.9 g | 3.1 g | +244.4% |
| Fosfor | 20 mg | 12 mg | -40.0% |
| Fruktoz | — | 6.23 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.81 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 14.6 µg | 4.4 µg | -69.9% |
| Kalsiyum | 10 mg | 9 mg | -10.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 18.1 g | 15.23 g | -15.9% |
| Kül | — | 0.31 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 7 mg | 7 mg | 0.0% |
| Mangan | 0.071 mg | 0.048 mg | -32.4% |
| Niasin | 0.188 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 191 mg | 116 mg | -39.3% |
| Protein | 0.72 g | 0.36 g | -50.0% |
| Su | 80.54 g | 83.96 g | +4.2% |
| Toplam Folat | 2 µg | 7 µg | +250.0% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.16 g | 0.14 g | -12.5% |
| Toplam Şeker | 15.48 g | 9.75 g | -37.0% |
| Çinko | 0.07 mg | 0.1 mg | +42.9% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Alphonse üzümü and Williams armudu.
Williams armudu has less energy per 100 g (57 kcal versus 69 kcal).
For measured Toplam Folat, Alphonse üzümü has 2 µg and Williams armudu has 7 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, Williams armudu 19.
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.