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
125 kcal
Score
26 / 100
Çibörek İçi has a higher nutrition quality score (54) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
165.4 vs 125(-24.4%)
Score Diff
54 vs 26(-51.9%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çibörek İçi
Higher energy
Çibörek İçi
Score leader
Çibörek İçi
Nutrient split
12 - 8 (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.
Çibörek İçi and Analı kızlı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Çibörek İçi has 165.4 kcal and Analı kızlı has 125.0 kcal. The difference is 40.4 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 54 and 26. 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 | Çibörek İçi | Analı kızlı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 28 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.11 mg | — |
| B12 Vitamini | 1.62 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.08 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.23 mg | 0.14 mg | -39.1% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2.2 mg | 2.6 mg | +18.2% |
| Demir | 1.85 mg | 1.45 mg | -21.6% |
| Diyet lifi | 0.5 g | 2.3 g | +360.0% |
| Fosfor | 138 mg | 78 mg | -43.5% |
| Kalsiyum | 19 mg | 24 mg | +26.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 2.1 g | 14.2 g | +576.2% |
| Kolesterol | 47 mg | 12 mg | -74.5% |
| Kül | 1.4 g | 1.2 g | -14.3% |
| Magnezyum | 16.5 mg | 26 mg | +57.6% |
| Niasin | 3.65 mg | 1.65 mg | -54.8% |
| Potasyum | 268 mg | 220 mg | -17.9% |
| Protein | 14.3 g | 5.6 g | -60.8% |
| Selenyum | 15.6 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 295 mg | 325 mg | +10.2% |
| Su | 71 g | 76.2 g | +7.3% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 4.5 g | 1.75 g | -61.1% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 34 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.9 g | 2.15 g | -56.1% |
| Toplam yağ | 11.2 g | 5.1 g | -54.5% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.6 g | 0.82 g | +36.7% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.1 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 3.45 mg | 1.12 mg | -67.5% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çibörek İçi and Analı kızlı.
Analı kızlı has less energy per 100 g (125 kcal versus 165.4 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Çibörek İçi has 2.1 g and Analı kızlı has 14.2 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: Çibörek İçi 54, Analı kızlı 26.
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.