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
88 kcal
Score
29 / 100
Tteokguk has a higher nutrition quality score (29) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
275 vs 88(-68.0%)
Score Diff
14 vs 29(+107.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Tteokguk
Higher energy
Amritsari kulcha
Score leader
Tteokguk
Nutrient split
18 - 1 (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.
Amritsari kulcha and Tteokguk are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Amritsari kulcha has 275.0 kcal and Tteokguk has 88.0 kcal. The difference is 187.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 14 and 29. 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 | Amritsari kulcha | Tteokguk | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 35 µg | 18 µg | -48.6% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.22 mg | 0.04 mg | -81.8% |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 0.26 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.15 mg | 0.06 mg | -60.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.18 mg | 0.07 mg | -61.1% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 6.5 mg | 0.8 mg | -87.7% |
| Demir | 2.1 mg | 0.72 mg | -65.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.8 g | 0.6 g | -78.6% |
| Folat DFE | 45 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 110 mg | 38 mg | -65.5% |
| Kalsiyum | 45 mg | 12 mg | -73.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 38.5 g | 15.2 g | -60.5% |
| Kolesterol | — | 14.5 mg | — |
| Kül | 1.5 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 28 mg | 9.5 mg | -66.1% |
| Niasin | 2.1 mg | 0.95 mg | -54.8% |
| Potasyum | 210 mg | 88 mg | -58.1% |
| Protein | 6.5 g | 3.8 g | -41.5% |
| Sodyum | 480 mg | 365 mg | -24.0% |
| Su | 40.2 g | 78.4 g | +95.0% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 5.2 g | 0.52 g | -90.0% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 12.4 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.58 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 10.5 g | 1.5 g | -85.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.22 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.8 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 0.8 mg | 0.68 mg | -15.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Amritsari kulcha and Tteokguk.
Tteokguk has less energy per 100 g (88 kcal versus 275 kcal).
For measured Su, Amritsari kulcha has 40.2 g and Tteokguk has 78.4 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: Amritsari kulcha 14, Tteokguk 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.