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
281 kcal
Score
43 / 100
Çemen otu yaprağı has a higher nutrition quality score (88) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
49 vs 281(+473.5%)
Score Diff
88 vs 43(-51.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çemen otu yaprağı
Higher energy
Ancho biberi
Score leader
Çemen otu yaprağı
Nutrient split
3 - 16 (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 Ancho biberi 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 Ancho biberi has 281.0 kcal. The difference is 232.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 88 and 43. 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 | Çemen otu yaprağı | Ancho biberi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 215 µg | 1317 µg | +512.6% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.05 mg | 0.33 mg | +560.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.31 mg | 0.92 mg | +196.8% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.12 mg | 2.14 mg | +1683.3% |
| Bakir | 0.18 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | 2580 µg | 15800 µg | +512.4% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 52 mg | 4.1 mg | -92.1% |
| Demir | 3.2 mg | 4.13 mg | +29.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.5 g | 23.1 g | +824.0% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 3.82 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 58 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 51 mg | 201 mg | +294.1% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 160 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 395 mg | 148 mg | -62.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 6 g | 51.44 g | +757.3% |
| Kül | 1.5 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 54 mg | 88 mg | +63.0% |
| Niasin | 0.85 mg | 7.8 mg | +817.6% |
| Potasyum | 380 mg | 2589 mg | +581.3% |
| Protein | 4.4 g | 11.86 g | +169.5% |
| Sodyum | 42 mg | 44 mg | +4.8% |
| Su | 86.2 g | 14.5 g | -83.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 1.42 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 84 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.94 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.9 g | 8.2 g | +811.1% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 4.12 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 31.8 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.42 mg | 1.4 mg | +233.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çemen otu yaprağı and Ancho biberi.
Çemen otu yaprağı has less energy per 100 g (49 kcal versus 281 kcal).
For measured B6 Vitamini, Çemen otu yaprağı has 0.12 mg and Ancho biberi has 2.14 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: Çemen otu yaprağı 88, Ancho biberi 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.