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
574 kcal
Score
29 / 100
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has a higher nutrition quality score (29) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
654 vs 574(-12.2%)
Score Diff
15 vs 29(+93.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu)
Higher energy
Ceviz
Score leader
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu)
Nutrient split
6 - 10 (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 and Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Ceviz has 654.0 kcal and Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has 574.0 kcal. The difference is 80.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 15 and 29. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
16 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Ceviz | Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.34 mg | 0.2 mg | -41.2% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.15 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.53 mg | 0.25 mg | -52.8% |
| Bakir | 1.58 mg | 2.19 mg | +38.6% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 1.3 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 2.91 mg | 6 mg | +106.2% |
| Diyet lifi | 6.7 g | 3.3 g | -50.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.7 mg | — | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 574 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 346 mg | 490 mg | +41.6% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 34.7 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 98 mg | — | — |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 13.71 g | 32.69 g | +138.4% |
| Kül | 1.78 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 158 mg | 273 mg | +72.8% |
| Mangan | 3.41 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 1.12 mg | — | — |
| Pantotenik asit | 0.57 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 441 mg | 565 mg | +28.1% |
| Protein | 15.23 g | 15.31 g | +0.5% |
| Sodyum | — | 308 mg | — |
| Su | 4.07 g | 1.7 g | -58.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 6.13 g | 9.15 g | +49.3% |
| Toplam Folat | 98 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 8.93 g | 25.9 g | +190.0% |
| Toplam yağ | 65.21 g | 46.35 g | -28.9% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 47.17 g | 8.48 g | -82.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 5.01 g | — |
| Çinko | 3.09 mg | 5.6 mg | +81.2% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ceviz and Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu).
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has less energy per 100 g (574 kcal versus 654 kcal).
For measured Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri, Ceviz has 8.93 g and Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has 25.9 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 15, Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) 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.