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
52 kcal
Score
19 / 100
Elma has a higher nutrition quality score (19) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
52 vs 52(0.0%)
Score Diff
18 vs 19(+5.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Elma
Higher energy
Energy is equal
Score leader
Elma
Nutrient split
0 - 1 (tie: 19)
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.
Elma (Kabuklu, Çiğ) and Elma are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Elma (Kabuklu, Çiğ) has 52.0 kcal and Elma has 52.0 kcal. The difference is 0.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 18 and 19. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
20 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Elma (Kabuklu, Çiğ) | Elma | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 3 µg | 3 µg | 0.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.017 mg | 0.017 mg | 0.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.026 mg | 0.026 mg | 0.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.041 mg | — |
| Bakir | — | 0.027 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 27 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 4.6 mg | 4.6 mg | 0.0% |
| Demir | 0.12 mg | 0.12 mg | 0.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.4 g | 2.4 g | 0.0% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 52 kcal | 52 kcal | 0.0% |
| Folat DFE | — | 3 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 11 mg | 11 mg | 0.0% |
| Fruktoz | 5.9 g | 5.9 g | 0.0% |
| Glikoz | 2.4 g | 2.4 g | 0.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 6 mg | 6 mg | 0.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (toplamla) | 13.81 g | 13.81 g | 0.0% |
| Kolesterol | — | 0 mg | — |
| Magnezyum | 5 mg | 5 mg | 0.0% |
| Mangan | — | 0.035 mg | — |
| Niasin | — | 0.091 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 107 mg | 107 mg | 0.0% |
| Protein | 0.26 g | 0.26 g | 0.0% |
| Sakkaroz | 2 g | 2.1 g | +5.0% |
| Selenyum | — | 0.1 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 1 mg | 1 mg | 0.0% |
| Su | 85.56 g | 85.56 g | 0.0% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.17 g | 0.17 g | 0.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 10.39 g | 10.39 g | 0.0% |
| Çinko | — | 0.04 mg | — |
Scientific answers to key differences between Elma (Kabuklu, Çiğ) and Elma.
The records show 52 kcal per 100 g for both foods.
For measured Sakkaroz, Elma (Kabuklu, Çiğ) has 2 g and Elma has 2.1 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: Elma (Kabuklu, Çiğ) 18, Elma 19.
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.