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
338 kcal
Score
29 / 100
Altın kinoa has a higher nutrition quality score (32) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
368 vs 338(-8.2%)
Score Diff
32 vs 29(-9.4%)
OVERALL WINNER
Altın kinoa
Higher energy
Altın kinoa
Score leader
Altın kinoa
Nutrient split
12 - 9 (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.
Altın kinoa and Emmer buğdayı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Altın kinoa has 368.0 kcal and Emmer buğdayı has 338.0 kcal. The difference is 30.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 32 and 29. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
22 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Altın kinoa | Emmer buğdayı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.36 mg | 0.45 mg | +25.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.32 mg | 0.15 mg | -53.1% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.49 mg | 0.38 mg | -22.4% |
| Bakir | 0.59 mg | 0.51 mg | -13.6% |
| Demir | 4.57 mg | 4.4 mg | -3.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 7 g | 10.7 g | +52.9% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 2.44 mg | 0.85 mg | -65.2% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 368 kcal | — | — |
| Fosfor | 457 mg | 400 mg | -12.5% |
| Kalsiyum | 47 mg | 40 mg | -14.9% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 64.16 g | 65.3 g | +1.8% |
| Kül | — | 1.9 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 197 mg | 130 mg | -34.0% |
| Mangan | 2 mg | 3.2 mg | +60.0% |
| Niasin | 1.52 mg | 6.4 mg | +321.1% |
| Potasyum | 563 mg | 440 mg | -21.8% |
| Protein | 14.12 g | 14.6 g | +3.4% |
| Selenyum | 8.5 µg | 42.5 µg | +400.0% |
| Sodyum | 5 mg | 5 mg | 0.0% |
| Su | 13.28 g | 10.4 g | -21.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.42 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 184 µg | 55 µg | -70.1% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.38 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 6.07 g | 2.4 g | -60.5% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 1.12 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 0.1 g | 2.1 g | +2000.0% |
| Çinko | 3.1 mg | 3.3 mg | +6.5% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Altın kinoa and Emmer buğdayı.
Emmer buğdayı has less energy per 100 g (338 kcal versus 368 kcal).
For measured Toplam Şeker, Altın kinoa has 0.1 g and Emmer buğdayı has 2.1 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: Altın kinoa 32, Emmer buğdayı 29.
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.