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
72 kcal
Score
45 / 100
Çin lahanası has a higher nutrition quality score (85) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
16 vs 72(+350.0%)
Score Diff
85 vs 45(-47.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Çin lahanası
Higher energy
Arpacık Soğan
Score leader
Çin lahanası
Nutrient split
7 - 14 (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.
Çin lahanası and Arpacık Soğan are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Çin lahanası has 16.0 kcal and Arpacık Soğan has 72.0 kcal. The difference is 56.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 85 and 45. 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 | Çin lahanası | Arpacık Soğan | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (IU) | — | 66 iu | — |
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 16 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.04 mg | 0.06 mg | +50.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.053 mg | 0.02 mg | -62.3% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.232 mg | 0.345 mg | +48.7% |
| Bakir | 0.021 mg | 0.088 mg | +319.0% |
| Beta Karoten | 190 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 32 mg | 8 mg | -75.0% |
| Demir | 0.31 mg | 1.2 mg | +287.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.2 g | 3.2 g | +166.7% |
| Fosfor | 29 mg | 60 mg | +106.9% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 42.9 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 77 mg | 37 mg | -51.9% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 3.23 g | 16.8 g | +420.1% |
| Kül | 0.76 g | — | — |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | 48 µg | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 13 mg | 21 mg | +61.5% |
| Mangan | 0.158 mg | 0.292 mg | +84.8% |
| Niasin | 0.438 mg | 0.2 mg | -54.3% |
| Pantotenik asit | 0.107 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 238 mg | 334 mg | +40.3% |
| Protein | 1.2 g | 2.5 g | +108.3% |
| Selenyum | — | 1.2 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 9 mg | 12 mg | +33.3% |
| Su | 95.32 g | 79.8 g | -16.3% |
| Toplam Folat | 79 µg | 34 µg | -57.0% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.17 g | 0.1 g | -41.2% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.4 g | 7.87 g | +462.1% |
| Çinko | 0.23 mg | 0.4 mg | +73.9% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Çin lahanası and Arpacık Soğan.
Çin lahanası has less energy per 100 g (16 kcal versus 72 kcal).
For measured Toplam Şeker, Çin lahanası has 1.4 g and Arpacık Soğan has 7.87 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: Çin lahanası 85, Arpacık Soğan 45.
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.