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
132.5 kcal
Score
35 / 100
Patlıcan musakka has a higher nutrition quality score (35) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
125 vs 132.5(+6.0%)
Score Diff
26 vs 35(+34.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Patlıcan musakka
Higher energy
Patlıcan musakka
Score leader
Patlıcan musakka
Nutrient split
11 - 9 (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 Patlıcan musakka 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 Patlıcan musakka has 132.5 kcal. The difference is 7.5 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 26 and 35. 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 | Analı kızlı | Patlıcan musakka | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 28 µg | 14 µg | -50.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.11 mg | — | — |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 0.35 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.08 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.14 mg | 0.12 mg | -14.3% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2.6 mg | 8.5 mg | +226.9% |
| Demir | 1.45 mg | 0.9 mg | -37.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.3 g | 2.4 g | +4.3% |
| Folat DFE | — | 18 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 78 mg | 68 mg | -12.8% |
| Kalsiyum | 24 mg | 22 mg | -8.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 14.2 g | 6.2 g | -56.3% |
| Kolesterol | 12 mg | 15 mg | +25.0% |
| Kül | 1.2 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 26 mg | 18 mg | -30.8% |
| Niasin | 1.65 mg | 1.45 mg | -12.1% |
| Potasyum | 220 mg | 284 mg | +29.1% |
| Protein | 5.6 g | 5.8 g | +3.6% |
| Sodyum | 325 mg | 215 mg | -33.8% |
| Su | 76.2 g | 75.1 g | -1.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.75 g | 2.8 g | +60.0% |
| Toplam Folat | 34 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.15 g | 4.2 g | +95.3% |
| Toplam yağ | 5.1 g | 9.4 g | +84.3% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.82 g | 1.5 g | +82.9% |
| Çinko | 1.12 mg | 0.72 mg | -35.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Analı kızlı and Patlıcan musakka.
Analı kızlı has less energy per 100 g (125 kcal versus 132.5 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Analı kızlı has 2.6 mg and Patlıcan musakka has 8.5 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: Analı kızlı 26, Patlıcan musakka 35.
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.