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
28.5 kcal
Score
90 / 100
Kanlıca Çam Mantarı has a higher nutrition quality score (90) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
228 vs 28.5(-87.5%)
Score Diff
66 vs 90(+36.4%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kanlıca Çam Mantarı
Higher energy
Baobab Meyvesi Tozu
Score leader
Kanlıca Çam Mantarı
Nutrient split
11 - 8 (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.
Baobab Meyvesi Tozu and Kanlıca Çam Mantarı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Baobab Meyvesi Tozu has 228.0 kcal and Kanlıca Çam Mantarı has 28.5 kcal. The difference is 199.5 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 66 and 90. 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 | Baobab Meyvesi Tozu | Kanlıca Çam Mantarı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.05 mg | 0.11 mg | +120.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.14 mg | 0.35 mg | +150.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.06 mg | 0.14 mg | +133.3% |
| Bakir | 0.45 mg | 0.38 mg | -15.6% |
| Beta-glukan | — | 0.8 g | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 280 mg | 3.2 mg | -98.9% |
| D2 Vitamini (ergokalsiferol) | — | 2.8 µg | — |
| Demir | 2.1 mg | 1.8 mg | -14.3% |
| Diyet lifi | 44.5 g | 2.4 g | -94.6% |
| Ergosterol | — | 42 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 32 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 48 mg | 85 mg | +77.1% |
| Kalsiyum | 295 mg | 15 mg | -94.9% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 76.2 g | 4.2 g | -94.5% |
| Kül | 5.8 g | 0.9 g | -84.5% |
| Magnezyum | 160 mg | 16 mg | -90.0% |
| Niasin | 1.8 mg | 4.1 mg | +127.8% |
| Potasyum | 2250 mg | 390 mg | -82.7% |
| Protein | 2.3 g | 2.3 g | 0.0% |
| Selenyum | — | 9.5 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 3 mg | 5 mg | +66.7% |
| Su | 11.2 g | 91.8 g | +719.6% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.3 g | 0.6 g | +100.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 25.6 g | 1.2 g | -95.3% |
| Çinko | 0.9 mg | 0.85 mg | -5.6% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Baobab Meyvesi Tozu and Kanlıca Çam Mantarı.
Kanlıca Çam Mantarı has less energy per 100 g (28.5 kcal versus 228 kcal).
For measured Su, Baobab Meyvesi Tozu has 11.2 g and Kanlıca Çam Mantarı has 91.8 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: Baobab Meyvesi Tozu 66, Kanlıca Çam Mantarı 90.
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.