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
15 kcal
Score
85 / 100
Salatalık (Çengelköy) has a higher nutrition quality score (85) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
14 vs 15(+7.1%)
Score Diff
81 vs 85(+4.9%)
OVERALL WINNER
Salatalık (Çengelköy)
Higher energy
Salatalık (Çengelköy)
Score leader
Salatalık (Çengelköy)
Nutrient split
15 - 6 (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.
Aysberg marul and Salatalık (Çengelköy) are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Aysberg marul has 14.0 kcal and Salatalık (Çengelköy) has 15.0 kcal. The difference is 1.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 81 and 85. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
22 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Aysberg marul | Salatalık (Çengelköy) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 25 µg | 5 µg | -80.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.041 mg | 0.027 mg | -34.1% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.025 mg | 0.033 mg | +32.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.042 mg | 0.04 mg | -4.8% |
| Bakir | — | 0.041 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 299 µg | 45 µg | -84.9% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2.8 mg | 2.8 mg | 0.0% |
| Demir | 0.41 mg | 0.28 mg | -31.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.2 g | 0.5 g | -58.3% |
| Enerji | — | 63 kj | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 15 kcal | — |
| Folat DFE | 29 µg | 7 µg | -75.9% |
| Fosfor | 20 mg | 24 mg | +20.0% |
| Fruktoz | — | 0.86 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 0.76 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 24.1 µg | 16.4 µg | -32.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 18 mg | 16 mg | -11.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 2.97 g | 3.63 g | +22.2% |
| Kül | — | 0.38 g | — |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | — | 23 µg | — |
| Magnezyum | 7 mg | 13 mg | +85.7% |
| Mangan | — | 0.079 mg | — |
| Niasin | 0.123 mg | 0.098 mg | -20.3% |
| Pantotenik asit | — | 0.259 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 141 mg | 147 mg | +4.3% |
| Protein | 0.9 g | 0.65 g | -27.8% |
| Sodyum | 10 mg | 2 mg | -80.0% |
| Su | 95.64 g | 95.23 g | -0.4% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.14 g | 0.11 g | -21.4% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.97 g | 1.67 g | -15.2% |
| Çinko | 0.15 mg | 0.2 mg | +33.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Aysberg marul and Salatalık (Çengelköy).
Aysberg marul has less energy per 100 g (14 kcal versus 15 kcal).
For measured Magnezyum, Aysberg marul has 7 mg and Salatalık (Çengelköy) has 13 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: Aysberg marul 81, Salatalık (Çengelköy) 85.
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.