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
151 kcal
Score
30 / 100
Ajvar has a higher nutrition quality score (98) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
98 vs 151(+54.1%)
Score Diff
98 vs 30(-69.4%)
OVERALL WINNER
Ajvar
Higher energy
Cranberry sosu
Score leader
Ajvar
Nutrient split
17 - 2 (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.
Ajvar and Cranberry sosu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Ajvar has 98.0 kcal and Cranberry sosu has 151.0 kcal. The difference is 53.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 98 and 30. 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 | Ajvar | Cranberry sosu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 78 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.012 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.018 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.19 mg | 0.025 mg | -86.8% |
| Bakir | — | 0.04 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 935 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 62.4 mg | 4.5 mg | -92.8% |
| Demir | 0.85 mg | 0.26 mg | -69.4% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.6 g | 1.1 g | -57.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 1.75 mg | 0.72 mg | -58.9% |
| Enerji | — | 632 kj | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 151 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 29 mg | 5 mg | -82.8% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 1.9 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 19 mg | 6 mg | -68.4% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 8.35 g | 38.9 g | +365.9% |
| Kül | 1.6 g | 0.25 g | -84.4% |
| Magnezyum | 15 mg | 3 mg | -80.0% |
| Mangan | — | 0.15 mg | — |
| Niasin | 0.88 mg | 0.14 mg | -84.1% |
| Potasyum | 235 mg | 35 mg | -85.1% |
| Protein | 1.45 g | 0.2 g | -86.2% |
| Sodyum | 490 mg | 24 mg | -95.1% |
| Su | 81.8 g | 60.3 g | -26.3% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.72 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | 21 µg | 1 µg | -95.2% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.85 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 5.8 g | 0.15 g | -97.4% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.95 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 4.9 g | 34.6 g | +606.1% |
| Çinko | 0.28 mg | 0.08 mg | -71.4% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Ajvar and Cranberry sosu.
Ajvar has less energy per 100 g (98 kcal versus 151 kcal).
For measured Toplam Şeker, Ajvar has 4.9 g and Cranberry sosu has 34.6 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: Ajvar 98, Cranberry sosu 30.
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.