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
562 kcal
Score
17 / 100
Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı has a higher nutrition quality score (17) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
654 vs 562(-14.1%)
Score Diff
15 vs 17(+13.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı
Higher energy
Ceviz
Score leader
Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı
Nutrient split
8 - 13 (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 Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı 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 Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı has 562.0 kcal. The difference is 92.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 15 and 17. 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 | Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.34 mg | 0.87 mg | +155.9% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.15 mg | 0.16 mg | +6.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.53 mg | 1.7 mg | +220.8% |
| Bakir | 1.58 mg | 1.3 mg | -17.7% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 1.3 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 2.91 mg | 3.92 mg | +34.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 6.7 g | 10.6 g | +58.2% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.7 mg | 2.3 mg | +228.6% |
| Folat DFE | — | 51 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 346 mg | 490 mg | +41.6% |
| Kalsiyum | 98 mg | 105 mg | +7.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 13.71 g | 27.17 g | +98.2% |
| Kül | 1.78 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 158 mg | 121 mg | -23.4% |
| Mangan | 3.41 mg | 1.2 mg | -64.8% |
| Niasin | 1.12 mg | 1.3 mg | +16.1% |
| Pantotenik asit | 0.57 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 441 mg | 1025 mg | +132.4% |
| Protein | 15.23 g | 20.16 g | +32.4% |
| Selenyum | — | 7 µg | — |
| Sodyum | — | 1 mg | — |
| Su | 4.07 g | 3.91 g | -3.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 6.13 g | 5.58 g | -9.0% |
| Toplam Folat | 98 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 8.93 g | 23.82 g | +166.7% |
| Toplam yağ | 65.21 g | 45.32 g | -30.5% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 47.17 g | 13.74 g | -70.9% |
| Çinko | 3.09 mg | 2.2 mg | -28.8% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ceviz and Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı.
Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı has less energy per 100 g (562 kcal versus 654 kcal).
For measured E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol), Ceviz has 0.7 mg and Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı has 2.3 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: Ceviz 15, Kavrulmuş İç Antep Fıstığı 17.
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.