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
373 kcal
Score
43 / 100
Çemen otu yaprağı has a higher nutrition quality score (88) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
49 vs 373(+661.2%)
Score Diff
88 vs 43(-51.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çemen otu yaprağı
Higher energy
Achiote
Score leader
Çemen otu yaprağı
Nutrient split
6 - 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.
Çemen otu yaprağı and Achiote are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Çemen otu yaprağı has 49.0 kcal and Achiote has 373.0 kcal. The difference is 324.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 88 and 43. 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 | Çemen otu yaprağı | Achiote | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 215 µg | 100 µg | -53.5% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.05 mg | 0.25 mg | +400.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.31 mg | 0.4 mg | +29.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.12 mg | 0.35 mg | +191.7% |
| Bakir | 0.18 mg | 0.5 mg | +177.8% |
| Beta Karoten | 2580 µg | 1200 µg | -53.5% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 52 mg | 2 mg | -96.2% |
| Demir | 3.2 mg | 6.5 mg | +103.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.5 g | 16.5 g | +560.0% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.5 mg | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 373 kcal | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 120 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 51 mg | 250 mg | +390.2% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 160 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 395 mg | 355 mg | -10.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 6 g | — | — |
| Karbonhidrat (toplamla) | — | 60.3 g | — |
| Kül | 1.5 g | 6.48 g | +332.0% |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | — | 50 µg | — |
| Magnezyum | 54 mg | 280 mg | +418.5% |
| Mangan | — | 1.5 mg | — |
| Niasin | 0.85 mg | 3 mg | +252.9% |
| Potasyum | 380 mg | 1250 mg | +228.9% |
| Protein | 4.4 g | 12.86 g | +192.3% |
| Selenyum | — | 5 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 42 mg | 20 mg | -52.4% |
| Su | 86.2 g | 8 g | -90.7% |
| Toplam Folat | 84 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.9 g | 12.36 g | +1273.3% |
| Çinko | 0.42 mg | 2.5 mg | +495.2% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çemen otu yaprağı and Achiote.
Çemen otu yaprağı has less energy per 100 g (49 kcal versus 373 kcal).
For measured Toplam yağ, Çemen otu yaprağı has 0.9 g and Achiote has 12.36 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: Çemen otu yaprağı 88, Achiote 43.
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.