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
13 kcal
Score
92 / 100
Çin marulu has a higher nutrition quality score (92) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
72 vs 13(-81.9%)
Score Diff
45 vs 92(+104.4%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çin marulu
Higher energy
Arpacık Soğan
Score leader
Çin marulu
Nutrient split
12 - 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.
Arpacık Soğan and Çin marulu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Arpacık Soğan has 72.0 kcal and Çin marulu has 13.0 kcal. The difference is 59.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 45 and 92. 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 | Arpacık Soğan | Çin marulu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (IU) | 66 iu | — | — |
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 16 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.06 mg | 0.04 mg | -33.3% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.02 mg | 0.05 mg | +150.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.345 mg | 0.05 mg | -85.5% |
| Bakir | 0.088 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 190 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8 mg | 27 mg | +237.5% |
| Demir | 1.2 mg | 0.31 mg | -74.2% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.2 g | 1 g | -68.8% |
| Folat DFE | — | 79 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 60 mg | 29 mg | -51.7% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 42.9 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 37 mg | 77 mg | +108.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 16.8 g | 2.18 g | -87.0% |
| Magnezyum | 21 mg | 13 mg | -38.1% |
| Mangan | 0.292 mg | 0.19 mg | -34.9% |
| Niasin | 0.2 mg | 0.4 mg | +100.0% |
| Potasyum | 334 mg | 238 mg | -28.7% |
| Protein | 2.5 g | 1.2 g | -52.0% |
| Selenyum | 1.2 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 12 mg | 11 mg | -8.3% |
| Su | 79.8 g | 95 g | +19.0% |
| Toplam Folat | 34 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.1 g | 0.17 g | +70.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 7.87 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 0.4 mg | 0.23 mg | -42.5% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Arpacık Soğan and Çin marulu.
Çin marulu has less energy per 100 g (13 kcal versus 72 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Arpacık Soğan has 8 mg and Çin marulu has 27 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: Arpacık Soğan 45, Çin marulu 92.
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.