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
90 kcal
Score
34 / 100
Yong tau foo has a higher nutrition quality score (34) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
275 vs 90(-67.3%)
Score Diff
14 vs 34(+142.9%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yong tau foo
Higher energy
Amritsari kulcha
Score leader
Yong tau foo
Nutrient split
15 - 4 (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.
Amritsari kulcha and Yong tau foo 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 Yong tau foo has 90.0 kcal. The difference is 185.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 14 and 34. 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 | Amritsari kulcha | Yong tau foo | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 35 µg | 24 µg | -31.4% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.22 mg | 0.06 mg | -72.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.15 mg | 0.08 mg | -46.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.18 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 6.5 mg | 7.2 mg | +10.8% |
| Demir | 2.1 mg | 1.2 mg | -42.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.8 g | 1.4 g | -50.0% |
| Folat DFE | 45 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 110 mg | 85 mg | -22.7% |
| Kalsiyum | 45 mg | 68 mg | +51.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 38.5 g | 4.8 g | -87.5% |
| Kolesterol | — | 18 mg | — |
| Kül | 1.5 g | 1.2 g | -20.0% |
| Magnezyum | 28 mg | 22 mg | -21.4% |
| Niasin | 2.1 mg | 1.45 mg | -31.0% |
| Potasyum | 210 mg | 210 mg | 0.0% |
| Protein | 6.5 g | 8.2 g | +26.2% |
| Sodyum | 480 mg | 420 mg | -12.5% |
| Su | 40.2 g | 80.2 g | +99.5% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 5.2 g | 0.8 g | -84.6% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 1.5 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 10.5 g | 4.2 g | -60.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 1.4 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.8 g | 1.1 g | -38.9% |
| Çinko | 0.8 mg | 0.75 mg | -6.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Amritsari kulcha and Yong tau foo.
Yong tau foo has less energy per 100 g (90 kcal versus 275 kcal).
For measured Su, Amritsari kulcha has 40.2 g and Yong tau foo has 80.2 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, Yong tau foo 34.
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.