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
49 kcal
Score
88 / 100
Çemen otu yaprağı has a higher nutrition quality score (88) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
281 vs 49(-82.6%)
Score Diff
43 vs 88(+104.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çemen otu yaprağı
Higher energy
Ancho biberi
Score leader
Çemen otu yaprağı
Nutrient split
16 - 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.
Ancho biberi and Çemen otu yaprağı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Ancho biberi has 281.0 kcal and Çemen otu yaprağı has 49.0 kcal. The difference is 232.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 43 and 88. 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 | Ancho biberi | Çemen otu yaprağı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 1317 µg | 215 µg | -83.7% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.33 mg | 0.05 mg | -84.8% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.92 mg | 0.31 mg | -66.3% |
| B6 Vitamini | 2.14 mg | 0.12 mg | -94.4% |
| Bakir | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 15800 µg | 2580 µg | -83.7% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 4.1 mg | 52 mg | +1168.3% |
| Demir | 4.13 mg | 3.2 mg | -22.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 23.1 g | 2.5 g | -89.2% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 3.82 mg | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 58 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 201 mg | 51 mg | -74.6% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 160 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 148 mg | 395 mg | +166.9% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 51.44 g | 6 g | -88.3% |
| Kül | — | 1.5 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 88 mg | 54 mg | -38.6% |
| Niasin | 7.8 mg | 0.85 mg | -89.1% |
| Potasyum | 2589 mg | 380 mg | -85.3% |
| Protein | 11.86 g | 4.4 g | -62.9% |
| Sodyum | 44 mg | 42 mg | -4.5% |
| Su | 14.5 g | 86.2 g | +494.5% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.42 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | — | 84 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.94 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 8.2 g | 0.9 g | -89.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.12 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 31.8 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 1.4 mg | 0.42 mg | -70.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ancho biberi and Çemen otu yaprağı.
Çemen otu yaprağı has less energy per 100 g (49 kcal versus 281 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Ancho biberi has 4.1 mg and Çemen otu yaprağı has 52 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: Ancho biberi 43, Çemen otu yaprağı 88.
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.