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
Anasazi fasulyesi has a higher nutrition quality score (38) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
337 vs 338(+0.3%)
Score Diff
38 vs 29(-23.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Anasazi fasulyesi
Higher energy
Emmer buğdayı
Score leader
Anasazi fasulyesi
Nutrient split
15 - 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.
Anasazi fasulyesi and Emmer buğdayı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Anasazi fasulyesi has 337.0 kcal and Emmer buğdayı has 338.0 kcal. The difference is 1.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 38 and 29. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
21 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Anasazi fasulyesi | Emmer buğdayı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.7 mg | 0.45 mg | -35.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.2 mg | 0.15 mg | -25.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.4 mg | 0.38 mg | -5.0% |
| Bakir | 0.8 mg | 0.51 mg | -36.3% |
| Demir | 5.1 mg | 4.4 mg | -13.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 15.2 g | 10.7 g | -29.6% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.85 mg | — |
| Fosfor | 410 mg | 400 mg | -2.4% |
| Kalsiyum | 135 mg | 40 mg | -70.4% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 61.3 g | 65.3 g | +6.5% |
| Kül | 4.2 g | 1.9 g | -54.8% |
| Magnezyum | 170 mg | 130 mg | -23.5% |
| Mangan | 1.1 mg | 3.2 mg | +190.9% |
| Niasin | 2.1 mg | 6.4 mg | +204.8% |
| Potasyum | 1360 mg | 440 mg | -67.6% |
| Protein | 21.5 g | 14.6 g | -32.1% |
| Selenyum | 12.8 µg | 42.5 µg | +232.0% |
| Sodyum | 12 mg | 5 mg | -58.3% |
| Su | 11.8 g | 10.4 g | -11.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.42 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 525 µg | 55 µg | -89.5% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.38 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 1.2 g | 2.4 g | +100.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 1.12 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 2.1 g | — |
| Çinko | 2.8 mg | 3.3 mg | +17.9% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Anasazi fasulyesi and Emmer buğdayı.
Anasazi fasulyesi has less energy per 100 g (337 kcal versus 338 kcal).
For measured Selenyum, Anasazi fasulyesi has 12.8 µg and Emmer buğdayı has 42.5 µg 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: Anasazi fasulyesi 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.