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
1 kcal
Score
91 / 100
Hibiskus çayı has a higher nutrition quality score (91) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
82 vs 1(-98.8%)
Score Diff
56 vs 91(+62.5%)
OVERALL WINNER
Hibiskus çayı
Higher energy
Beyaz etli balık
Score leader
Hibiskus çayı
Nutrient split
10 - 2 (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.
Beyaz etli balık and Hibiskus çayı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Beyaz etli balık has 82.0 kcal and Hibiskus çayı has 1.0 kcal. The difference is 81.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 56 and 91. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
13 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Beyaz etli balık | Hibiskus çayı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B12 Vitamini | 0.91 µg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.281 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | — | 0.002 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 1.2 mg | — |
| D Vitamini | 0.9 µg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.38 mg | 0.08 mg | -78.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 0 g | — |
| EPA (20:5 n-3) | 0.064 g | — | — |
| Fosfor | 203 mg | 1 mg | -99.5% |
| İyot | 110 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 16 mg | 8 mg | -50.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0 g | 0.08 g | — |
| Kolesterol | 43 mg | — | — |
| Kül | 1.16 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 32 mg | 3 mg | -90.6% |
| Mangan | — | 0.012 mg | — |
| Niasin | 2.06 mg | 0.04 mg | -98.1% |
| Potasyum | 413 mg | 9 mg | -97.8% |
| Protein | 17.81 g | 0 g | -100.0% |
| PUFA 22:6 c | 0.12 g | — | — |
| Selenyum | 33.1 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 54 mg | 4 mg | -92.6% |
| Su | 81.22 g | 99.58 g | +22.6% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.13 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | — | 1 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.09 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.67 g | 0 g | -100.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.23 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 0 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.45 mg | 0.01 mg | -97.8% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Beyaz etli balık and Hibiskus çayı.
Hibiskus çayı has less energy per 100 g (1 kcal versus 82 kcal).
For measured Protein, Beyaz etli balık has 17.81 g and Hibiskus çayı has 0 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: Beyaz etli balık 56, Hibiskus çayı 91.
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.