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
118 kcal
Score
0 / 100
Çiftlik çipurası has a higher nutrition quality score (57) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
158.4 vs 118(-25.5%)
Score Diff
57 vs 0(-100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çiftlik çipurası
Higher energy
Çiftlik çipurası
Score leader
Çiftlik çipurası
Nutrient split
7 - 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.
Çiftlik çipurası and Kereviz tuzu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Çiftlik çipurası has 158.4 kcal and Kereviz tuzu has 118.0 kcal. The difference is 40.4 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 57 and 0. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
17 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Çiftlik çipurası | Kereviz tuzu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.1 mg | — |
| B12 Vitamini | 2.8 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.11 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.38 mg | 0.07 mg | -81.6% |
| Bakir | — | 0.15 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 0 mg | — |
| D Vitamini | 4.5 µg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.62 mg | 13.5 mg | +2077.4% |
| DHA (22:6 n-3) | 0.68 g | — | — |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 3.6 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 1.75 mg | — | — |
| EPA (20:5 n-3) | 0.38 g | — | — |
| Fosfor | 215 mg | — | — |
| İyot | 38 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 19 mg | 372 mg | +1857.9% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0 g | 12.3 g | — |
| Kolesterol | 64 mg | — | — |
| Kül | 1.2 g | 71 g | +5816.7% |
| Magnezyum | 31 mg | 132 mg | +325.8% |
| Mangan | — | 0.6 mg | — |
| Niasin | 5.6 mg | 0.9 mg | -83.9% |
| Potasyum | 390 mg | 420 mg | +7.7% |
| Protein | 19.8 g | 5.4 g | -72.7% |
| Selenyum | 36.5 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 68 mg | 28000 mg | +41076.5% |
| Su | 70.2 g | 3 g | -95.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.15 g | 1.2 g | -44.2% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 3.65 g | 4.5 g | +23.3% |
| Toplam yağ | 8.8 g | 7.5 g | -14.8% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.25 g | 1.8 g | -20.0% |
| Çinko | 0.54 mg | 2 mg | +270.4% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çiftlik çipurası and Kereviz tuzu.
Kereviz tuzu has less energy per 100 g (118 kcal versus 158.4 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Çiftlik çipurası has 68 mg and Kereviz tuzu has 28000 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: Çiftlik çipurası 57, Kereviz tuzu 0.
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.