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
418 kcal
Score
29 / 100
Akçaağaç tohumu has a higher nutrition quality score (29) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
654 vs 418(-36.1%)
Score Diff
14 vs 29(+107.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Akçaağaç tohumu
Higher energy
Ceviz İçi (Yerli)
Score leader
Akçaağaç tohumu
Nutrient split
7 - 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.
Ceviz İçi (Yerli) and Akçaağaç tohumu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Ceviz İçi (Yerli) has 654.0 kcal and Akçaağaç tohumu has 418.0 kcal. The difference is 236.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 14 and 29. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
21 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Ceviz İçi (Yerli) | Akçaağaç tohumu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALA (18:3 n-3) | 9.08 g | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.34 mg | 0.35 mg | +2.9% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.54 mg | 0.42 mg | -22.2% |
| Bakir | 1.59 mg | 0.85 mg | -46.5% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 2.4 mg | — |
| Demir | 2.91 mg | 4.8 mg | +64.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 6.7 g | 11.5 g | +71.6% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.7 mg | — | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 62 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 346 mg | 390 mg | +12.7% |
| Kalsiyum | 98 mg | 145 mg | +48.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 13.71 g | 38.6 g | +181.5% |
| Kül | 1.78 g | 3.7 g | +107.9% |
| Magnezyum | 158 mg | 180 mg | +13.9% |
| Mangan | 3.41 mg | 2.6 mg | -23.8% |
| Niasin | — | 2.1 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 441 mg | 650 mg | +47.4% |
| Protein | 15.23 g | 22.4 g | +47.1% |
| Selenyum | 4.9 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 2 mg | 9 mg | +350.0% |
| Su | 4.07 g | 18.5 g | +354.5% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 6.13 g | 2.1 g | -65.7% |
| Toplam Folat | 98 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 8.93 g | 6.5 g | -27.2% |
| Toplam yağ | 65.21 g | 16.8 g | -74.2% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 47.17 g | 7.2 g | -84.7% |
| Toplam Şeker | 2.61 g | 4.2 g | +60.9% |
| Çinko | 3.09 mg | 3.2 mg | +3.6% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ceviz İçi (Yerli) and Akçaağaç tohumu.
Akçaağaç tohumu has less energy per 100 g (418 kcal versus 654 kcal).
For measured Su, Ceviz İçi (Yerli) has 4.07 g and Akçaağaç tohumu has 18.5 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: Ceviz İçi (Yerli) 14, Akçaağaç tohumu 29.
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.