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
Amarant unu has a higher nutrition quality score (38) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
386 vs 338(-12.4%)
Score Diff
38 vs 29(-23.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Amarant unu
Higher energy
Amarant unu
Score leader
Amarant unu
Nutrient split
17 - 6 (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.
Amarant unu and Emmer buğdayı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Amarant unu has 386.0 kcal and Emmer buğdayı has 338.0 kcal. The difference is 48.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 38 and 29. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
23 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Amarant unu | Emmer buğdayı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.116 mg | 0.45 mg | +287.9% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.2 mg | 0.15 mg | -25.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.587 mg | 0.38 mg | -35.3% |
| Bakir | 0.525 mg | 0.51 mg | -2.9% |
| Demir | 7.61 mg | 4.4 mg | -42.2% |
| Diyet lifi | 6.7 g | 10.7 g | +59.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.85 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | 49 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 557 mg | 400 mg | -28.2% |
| Kalsiyum | 159 mg | 40 mg | -74.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 66.17 g | 65.3 g | -1.3% |
| Kül | 2.48 g | 1.9 g | -23.4% |
| Magnezyum | 248 mg | 130 mg | -47.6% |
| Mangan | 3.33 mg | 3.2 mg | -3.9% |
| Niasin | 0.923 mg | 6.4 mg | +593.4% |
| Potasyum | 508 mg | 440 mg | -13.4% |
| Protein | 14.45 g | 14.6 g | +1.0% |
| Selenyum | — | 42.5 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 21 mg | 5 mg | -76.2% |
| Su | 11.1 g | 10.4 g | -6.3% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.46 g | 0.42 g | -71.2% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 55 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.69 g | 0.38 g | -77.5% |
| Toplam yağ | 6.51 g | 2.4 g | -63.1% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.78 g | 1.12 g | -59.7% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.7 g | 2.1 g | +23.5% |
| Çinko | 2.87 mg | 3.3 mg | +15.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Amarant unu and Emmer buğdayı.
Emmer buğdayı has less energy per 100 g (338 kcal versus 386 kcal).
For measured Niasin, Amarant unu has 0.923 mg and Emmer buğdayı has 6.4 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: Amarant unu 38, 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.