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
72 kcal
Score
45 / 100
Çarliston Biber has a higher nutrition quality score (68) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
20 vs 72(+260.0%)
Score Diff
68 vs 45(-33.8%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çarliston Biber
Higher energy
Arpacık Soğan
Score leader
Çarliston Biber
Nutrient split
5 - 14 (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.
Çarliston Biber and Arpacık Soğan are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Çarliston Biber has 20.0 kcal and Arpacık Soğan has 72.0 kcal. The difference is 52.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 68 and 45. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
19 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Çarliston Biber | Arpacık Soğan | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (IU) | — | 66 iu | — |
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 18 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.057 mg | 0.06 mg | +5.3% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.028 mg | 0.02 mg | -28.6% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.22 mg | 0.345 mg | +56.8% |
| Bakir | — | 0.088 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 208 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 80.4 mg | 8 mg | -90.0% |
| Demir | 0.34 mg | 1.2 mg | +252.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.7 g | 3.2 g | +88.2% |
| Fosfor | 20 mg | 60 mg | +200.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 7.4 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 10 mg | 37 mg | +270.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 4.64 g | 16.8 g | +262.1% |
| Magnezyum | 10 mg | 21 mg | +110.0% |
| Mangan | — | 0.292 mg | — |
| Niasin | 0.48 mg | 0.2 mg | -58.3% |
| Potasyum | 175 mg | 334 mg | +90.9% |
| Protein | 0.86 g | 2.5 g | +190.7% |
| Selenyum | — | 1.2 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 3 mg | 12 mg | +300.0% |
| Su | 93.2 g | 79.8 g | -14.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.04 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | 10 µg | 34 µg | +240.0% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.17 g | 0.1 g | -41.2% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.07 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 2.4 g | 7.87 g | +227.9% |
| Çinko | 0.13 mg | 0.4 mg | +207.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çarliston Biber and Arpacık Soğan.
Çarliston Biber has less energy per 100 g (20 kcal versus 72 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Çarliston Biber has 3 mg and Arpacık Soğan has 12 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: Çarliston Biber 68, Arpacık Soğan 45.
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.