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
47 kcal
Score
22 / 100
Can eriği has a higher nutrition quality score (35) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
46 vs 47(+2.2%)
Score Diff
35 vs 22(-37.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Can eriği
Higher energy
Akça armudu
Score leader
Can eriği
Nutrient split
9 - 5 (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.
Can eriği and Akça armudu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Can eriği has 46.0 kcal and Akça armudu has 47.0 kcal. The difference is 1.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 35 and 22. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
15 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Can eriği | Akça armudu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 17 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.028 mg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.026 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.029 mg | 0.028 mg | -3.4% |
| Bakir | 0.057 mg | 0.082 mg | +43.9% |
| Beta Karoten | 190 µg | 14 µg | -92.6% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 9.5 mg | 4.3 mg | -54.7% |
| Demir | 0.17 mg | 0.18 mg | +5.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.5 g | 2.8 g | +86.7% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 47 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 16 mg | 11 mg | -31.3% |
| Fruktoz | — | 6.2 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.8 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 6.4 µg | 4.4 µg | -31.3% |
| Kalsiyum | 6 mg | 9 mg | +50.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 10.2 g | 12.4 g | +21.6% |
| Kül | 0.45 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 7 mg | 7 mg | 0.0% |
| Malik asit | — | 250 mg | — |
| Niasin | 0.42 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 157 mg | 116 mg | -26.1% |
| Protein | 0.7 g | 0.38 g | -45.7% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 1.2 g | — |
| Sodyum | 1 mg | — | — |
| Su | 88.5 g | 85.5 g | -3.4% |
| Toplam Folat | 5 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.28 g | 0.12 g | -57.1% |
| Toplam Şeker | 8.2 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 0.1 mg | — | — |
Scientific answers to key differences between Can eriği and Akça armudu.
Can eriği has less energy per 100 g (46 kcal versus 47 kcal).
For measured Beta Karoten, Can eriği has 190 µg and Akça armudu has 14 µg 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: Can eriği 35, Akça armudu 22.
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.