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
175 kcal
Score
100 / 100
Akasya lifi has a higher nutrition quality score (100) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
151 vs 175(+15.9%)
Score Diff
30 vs 100(+233.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Akasya lifi
Higher energy
Akasya lifi
Score leader
Akasya lifi
Nutrient split
3 - 15 (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.
Cranberry sosu and Akasya lifi are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Cranberry sosu has 151.0 kcal and Akasya lifi has 175.0 kcal. The difference is 24.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 30 and 100. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
18 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Cranberry sosu | Akasya lifi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.012 mg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.018 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.025 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.04 mg | 0.15 mg | +275.0% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 4.5 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.26 mg | 1.2 mg | +361.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.1 g | 85 g | +7627.3% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.72 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | 632 kj | 732 kj | +15.8% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 151 kcal | 175 kcal | +15.9% |
| Fosfor | 5 mg | 35 mg | +600.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 1.9 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 6 mg | 950 mg | +15733.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 38.9 g | 85 g | +118.5% |
| Kül | 0.25 g | 3.3 g | +1220.0% |
| Magnezyum | 3 mg | 110 mg | +3566.7% |
| Mangan | 0.15 mg | 0.2 mg | +33.3% |
| Niasin | 0.14 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 35 mg | 480 mg | +1271.4% |
| Protein | 0.2 g | 2.1 g | +950.0% |
| Sodyum | 24 mg | 85 mg | +254.2% |
| Su | 60.3 g | 9.5 g | -84.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.02 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 1 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.15 g | 0.1 g | -33.3% |
| Toplam Şeker | 34.6 g | 0 g | -100.0% |
| Çinko | 0.08 mg | 0.4 mg | +400.0% |
| Çözünmeyen lif | — | 0.5 g | — |
| Çözünür lif | — | 84.5 g | — |
Scientific answers to key differences between Cranberry sosu and Akasya lifi.
Cranberry sosu has less energy per 100 g (151 kcal versus 175 kcal).
For measured Kalsiyum, Cranberry sosu has 6 mg and Akasya lifi has 950 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: Cranberry sosu 30, Akasya lifi 100.
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.