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
215 kcal
Score
8 / 100
Analı kızlı has a higher nutrition quality score (26) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
125 vs 215(+72.0%)
Score Diff
26 vs 8(-69.2%)
OVERALL WINNER
Analı kızlı
Higher energy
İç pilav
Score leader
Analı kızlı
Nutrient split
15 - 3 (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.
Analı kızlı and İç pilav are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Analı kızlı has 125.0 kcal and İç pilav has 215.0 kcal. The difference is 90.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 26 and 8. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
18 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Analı kızlı | İç pilav | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 28 µg | 25 µg | -10.7% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.11 mg | 0.06 mg | -45.5% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.08 mg | 0.03 mg | -62.5% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.14 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2.6 mg | 1.2 mg | -53.8% |
| Demir | 1.45 mg | 0.8 mg | -44.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.3 g | 1.5 g | -34.8% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.9 mg | — |
| Enerji | — | 900 kj | — |
| Fosfor | 78 mg | 65 mg | -16.7% |
| Kalsiyum | 24 mg | 18 mg | -25.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 14.2 g | 30.5 g | +114.8% |
| Kolesterol | 12 mg | — | — |
| Kül | 1.2 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 26 mg | 16 mg | -38.5% |
| Niasin | 1.65 mg | 0.8 mg | -51.5% |
| Potasyum | 220 mg | 110 mg | -50.0% |
| Protein | 5.6 g | 3.8 g | -32.1% |
| Sodyum | 325 mg | 280 mg | -13.8% |
| Su | 76.2 g | 55 g | -27.8% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.75 g | 2.8 g | +60.0% |
| Toplam Folat | 34 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.15 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 5.1 g | 8.5 g | +66.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.82 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 2.2 g | — |
| Çinko | 1.12 mg | 0.6 mg | -46.4% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Analı kızlı and İç pilav.
Analı kızlı has less energy per 100 g (125 kcal versus 215 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Analı kızlı has 14.2 g and İç pilav has 30.5 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: Analı kızlı 26, İç pilav 8.
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.