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.
Antep peyniri has a higher nutrition quality score (32) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
292 vs 720(+146.6%)
Score Diff
32 vs 2(-93.8%)
OVERALL WINNER
Antep peyniri
Higher energy
Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı
Score leader
Antep peyniri
Nutrient split
11 - 7 (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.
Antep peyniri and Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Antep peyniri has 292.0 kcal and Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı has 720.0 kcal. The difference is 428.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 32 and 2. 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 | Antep peyniri | Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 195 µg | 684 µg | +250.8% |
| B12 Vitamini | 1.45 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.36 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 158 µg | — |
| D Vitamini | — | 1.5 µg | — |
| Demir | 0.42 mg | — | — |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 0 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 2.32 mg | — |
| Enerji | 1221 kj | — | — |
| Fosfor | 450 mg | 24 mg | -94.7% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 7 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 680 mg | 24 mg | -96.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 1.8 g | 0.3 g | -83.3% |
| Kolesterol | 72 mg | 215 mg | +198.6% |
| Kül | 6.7 g | 0.15 g | -97.8% |
| Laktoz | 1.2 g | 0.25 g | -79.2% |
| Magnezyum | 25 mg | — | — |
| MUFA 18:1 (oleik asit) | — | 19.8 g | — |
| Potasyum | 115 mg | 24 mg | -79.1% |
| Protein | 21.5 g | 0.85 g | -96.0% |
| Retinol | 190 µg | 671 µg | +253.2% |
| SFA 16:0 (palmitik asit) | — | 21.5 g | — |
| SFA 4:0 (butirik asit) | — | 3.25 g | — |
| Sodyum | 1250 mg | 11 mg | -99.1% |
| Su | 48 g | 17.2 g | -64.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 13.8 g | 51.3 g | +271.7% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 5.8 g | 21 g | +262.1% |
| Toplam yağ | 22 g | 81.5 g | +270.5% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.85 g | 3.05 g | +258.8% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.2 g | 0.25 g | -79.2% |
| Çinko | 3.2 mg | 0.09 mg | -97.2% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Antep peyniri and Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı.
Antep peyniri has less energy per 100 g (292 kcal versus 720 kcal).
For measured Toplam doymus yağ asitleri, Antep peyniri has 13.8 g and Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı has 51.3 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: Antep peyniri 32, Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı 2.
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.