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.
Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü) has a higher nutrition quality score (31) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
198.4 vs 125(-37.0%)
Score Diff
31 vs 26(-16.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü)
Higher energy
Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü)
Score leader
Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü)
Nutrient split
20 - 3 (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.
Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü) and Analı kızlı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü) has 198.4 kcal and Analı kızlı has 125.0 kcal. The difference is 73.4 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 31 and 26. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
23 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü) | Analı kızlı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 92 µg | 28 µg | -69.6% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.18 mg | 0.11 mg | -38.9% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.09 mg | 0.08 mg | -11.1% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.22 mg | 0.14 mg | -36.4% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 14.8 mg | 2.6 mg | -82.4% |
| Demir | 2.45 mg | 1.45 mg | -40.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 5.4 g | 2.3 g | -57.4% |
| Fosfor | 115 mg | 78 mg | -32.2% |
| Kalsiyum | 42 mg | 24 mg | -42.9% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 32.8 g | 14.2 g | -56.7% |
| Kolesterol | — | 12 mg | — |
| Kül | 2.9 g | 1.2 g | -58.6% |
| Likopen | 1850 µg | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 52 mg | 26 mg | -50.0% |
| Niasin | 2.1 mg | 1.65 mg | -21.4% |
| Potasyum | 385 mg | 220 mg | -42.9% |
| Protein | 5.1 g | 5.6 g | +9.8% |
| Sodyum | 820 mg | 325 mg | -60.4% |
| Su | 47.5 g | 76.2 g | +60.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.78 g | 1.75 g | +124.4% |
| Toplam Folat | 44 µg | 34 µg | -22.7% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.65 g | 2.15 g | -18.9% |
| Toplam yağ | 5.2 g | 5.1 g | -1.9% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.45 g | 0.82 g | -43.4% |
| Toplam Şeker | 3.2 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 1.25 mg | 1.12 mg | -10.4% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü) and Analı kızlı.
Analı kızlı has less energy per 100 g (125 kcal versus 198.4 kcal).
For measured Toplam doymus yağ asitleri, Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü) has 0.78 g and Analı kızlı has 1.75 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: Çiğ Köfte (Etsiz Urfa Usulü) 31, 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.