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
43 kcal
Score
87 / 100
Sirken Otu has a higher nutrition quality score (87) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
72 vs 43(-40.3%)
Score Diff
45 vs 87(+93.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Sirken Otu
Higher energy
Arpacık Soğan
Score leader
Sirken Otu
Nutrient split
3 - 16 (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.
Arpacık Soğan and Sirken Otu 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 Sirken Otu has 43.0 kcal. The difference is 29.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 45 and 87. 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 | Arpacık Soğan | Sirken Otu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (IU) | 66 iu | — | — |
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 580 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.06 mg | 0.16 mg | +166.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.02 mg | 0.44 mg | +2100.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.345 mg | 0.27 mg | -21.7% |
| Bakir | 0.088 mg | 0.26 mg | +195.5% |
| Beta Karoten | — | 6960 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8 mg | 80 mg | +900.0% |
| Demir | 1.2 mg | 1.2 mg | 0.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.2 g | 4 g | +25.0% |
| Folat DFE | — | 30 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 60 mg | 72 mg | +20.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 37 mg | 309 mg | +735.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 16.8 g | 7.3 g | -56.5% |
| Kül | — | 3.4 g | — |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | — | 11300 µg | — |
| Magnezyum | 21 mg | 34 mg | +61.9% |
| Mangan | 0.292 mg | 0.78 mg | +167.1% |
| Niasin | 0.2 mg | 1.2 mg | +500.0% |
| Potasyum | 334 mg | 452 mg | +35.3% |
| Protein | 2.5 g | 4.2 g | +68.0% |
| Selenyum | 1.2 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 12 mg | 43 mg | +258.3% |
| Su | 79.8 g | 84.3 g | +5.6% |
| Toplam Folat | 34 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.1 g | 0.8 g | +700.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 7.87 g | 1.6 g | -79.7% |
| Çinko | 0.4 mg | 0.44 mg | +10.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Arpacık Soğan and Sirken Otu.
Sirken Otu has less energy per 100 g (43 kcal versus 72 kcal).
For measured B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin), Arpacık Soğan has 0.02 mg and Sirken Otu has 0.44 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, Sirken Otu 87.
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.