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
44 kcal
Score
82 / 100
At least one nutrition score lacks comparable measurements, so no overall winner is assigned.
Energy Diff
— vs 44
Score Diff
— vs 82
Higher energy
Measurement missing
Score leader
Insufficient data
Nutrient split
4 - 9 (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 Soğanı, Yumru, Soyulmuş, Kökü Alınmış, Çiğ and Taro, Tahitian, Çiğ are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
An energy measurement is missing, so an energy difference cannot be calculated.
There are not enough comparable micronutrient measurements for a score comparison.
13 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Arpacık Soğanı - Çiğ | Taro - Çiğ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (IU) | — | 2045 iu | — |
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 102 µg | — |
| Azot | 0.22 g | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.06 mg | — |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 0 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.24 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.18 mg | 0.12 mg | -33.3% |
| Bakir | 0.08 mg | 0.07 mg | -12.5% |
| Besin folati | — | 9 µg | — |
| Biyotin | 1.36 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 96 mg | — |
| D Vitamini | — | 0 µg | — |
| D Vitamini (IU) | — | 0 iu | — |
| Demir | 0.33 mg | 1.3 mg | +293.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.2 g | — | — |
| Enerji | — | 184 kj | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 9 µg | — |
| Folik asit | — | 0 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 54.63 mg | 45 mg | -17.6% |
| Fruktoz | 1.88 g | — | — |
| Glikoz | 0.5 g | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 26.06 mg | 129 mg | +395.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | — | 6.91 g | — |
| Kolesterol | — | 0 mg | — |
| Kül | 0.63 g | 1.38 g | +119.0% |
| Laktoz | 0.03 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 15.1 mg | 47 mg | +211.3% |
| Maltoz | 0.03 g | — | — |
| Mangan | 0.15 mg | 0.16 mg | +6.7% |
| MUFA 18:1 (oleik asit) | — | 0.08 g | — |
| Niasin | — | 0.99 mg | — |
| Pantotenik asit | — | 0.12 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 251.5 mg | 606 mg | +141.0% |
| Protein | 1.38 g | 2.79 g | +102.2% |
| PUFA 18:2 (linoleik asit) | — | 0.28 g | — |
| PUFA 18:3 | — | 0.12 g | — |
| Retinol | — | 0 µg | — |
| Sakkaroz | 1.91 g | — | — |
| Selenyum | — | 0.7 µg | — |
| SFA 16:0 (palmitik asit) | — | 0.17 g | — |
| SFA 18:0 (stearik asit) | — | 0.03 g | — |
| Sodyum | 3.64 mg | 50 mg | +1273.6% |
| Su | 83.47 g | 87.96 g | +5.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.2 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | — | 9 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.08 g | — |
| Toplam trans yağ asitleri | — | 0 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | — | 0.97 g | — |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.4 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 4.35 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 0.28 mg | 0.09 mg | -67.9% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Arpacık Soğanı, Yumru, Soyulmuş, Kökü Alınmış, Çiğ and Taro, Tahitian, Çiğ.
At least one energy measurement is missing, so the foods cannot be ranked by calories.
For measured Sodyum, Arpacık Soğanı - Çiğ has 3.64 mg and Taro - Çiğ has 50 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 Soğanı - Çiğ —, Taro - Çiğ 82.
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.
Arpacık Soğanı, Yumru, Soyulmuş, Kökü Alınmış, Çiğ · Taro, Tahitian, Çiğ · Methodology
Analytical Methodology
The scoring algorithm is a scale of 100 based on nutrient density and macro/micro component balance.