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
164 kcal
Score
84 / 100
Ahtapot (Izgara) has a higher nutrition quality score (84) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
91 vs 164(+80.2%)
Score Diff
50 vs 84(+68.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Ahtapot (Izgara)
Higher energy
Ahtapot (Izgara)
Score leader
Ahtapot (Izgara)
Nutrient split
2 - 17 (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.
Çimçim Karides and Ahtapot (Izgara) are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Çimçim Karides has 91.0 kcal and Ahtapot (Izgara) has 164.0 kcal. The difference is 73.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 50 and 84. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
19 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Çimçim Karides | Ahtapot (Izgara) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 18 µg | 90 µg | +400.0% |
| B12 Vitamini | 1.1 µg | 36 µg | +3172.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.1 mg | 0.65 mg | +550.0% |
| Bakir | 0.25 mg | 0.74 mg | +196.0% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 8 mg | — |
| Demir | 0.5 mg | 9.54 mg | +1808.0% |
| DHA (22:6 n-3) | 0.14 g | — | — |
| Diyet lifi | — | 0 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 2.1 mg | — |
| EPA (20:5 n-3) | 0.15 g | — | — |
| Fosfor | 210 mg | 279 mg | +32.9% |
| Kalsiyum | 52 mg | 106 mg | +103.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0.2 g | 4.4 g | +2100.0% |
| Kolesterol | 152 mg | 96 mg | -36.8% |
| Kül | 1.2 g | 3.2 g | +166.7% |
| Magnezyum | 37 mg | 60 mg | +62.2% |
| Mangan | 0.04 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 2.6 mg | 3.78 mg | +45.4% |
| Potasyum | 220 mg | 630 mg | +186.4% |
| Protein | 20.1 g | 29.82 g | +48.4% |
| Selenyum | 38 µg | 89.6 µg | +135.8% |
| Sodyum | 119 mg | 460 mg | +286.6% |
| Su | 78.5 g | 60.5 g | -22.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.45 g | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.32 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 1.1 g | 2.08 g | +89.1% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.51 g | — |
| Çinko | 1.2 mg | 3.36 mg | +180.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çimçim Karides and Ahtapot (Izgara).
Çimçim Karides has less energy per 100 g (91 kcal versus 164 kcal).
For measured B12 Vitamini, Çimçim Karides has 1.1 µg and Ahtapot (Izgara) has 36 µg 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: Çimçim Karides 50, Ahtapot (Izgara) 84.
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.