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
329 kcal
Score
41 / 100
Adzuki fasulyesi has a higher nutrition quality score (41) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
338 vs 329(-2.7%)
Score Diff
29 vs 41(+41.4%)
OVERALL WINNER
Adzuki fasulyesi
Higher energy
Emmer buğdayı
Score leader
Adzuki fasulyesi
Nutrient split
8 - 12 (tie: 1)
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.
Emmer buğdayı and Adzuki fasulyesi are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Emmer buğdayı has 338.0 kcal and Adzuki fasulyesi has 329.0 kcal. The difference is 9.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 29 and 41. 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 | Emmer buğdayı | Adzuki fasulyesi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.45 mg | 0.455 mg | +1.1% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.15 mg | 0.22 mg | +46.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.38 mg | 0.351 mg | -7.6% |
| Bakir | 0.51 mg | 1.09 mg | +113.7% |
| Demir | 4.4 mg | 4.98 mg | +13.2% |
| Diyet lifi | 10.7 g | 12.7 g | +18.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.85 mg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 400 mg | 381 mg | -4.8% |
| Kalsiyum | 40 mg | 66 mg | +65.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 65.3 g | 62.96 g | -3.6% |
| Kül | 1.9 g | 3.82 g | +101.1% |
| Magnezyum | 130 mg | 127 mg | -2.3% |
| Mangan | 3.2 mg | 1.73 mg | -45.9% |
| Niasin | 6.4 mg | 2.63 mg | -58.9% |
| Pantotenik asit | — | 1.47 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 440 mg | 1254 mg | +185.0% |
| Protein | 14.6 g | 19.87 g | +36.1% |
| Selenyum | 42.5 µg | 3.2 µg | -92.5% |
| Sodyum | 5 mg | 5 mg | 0.0% |
| Su | 10.4 g | 16.32 g | +56.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.42 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | 55 µg | 622 µg | +1030.9% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.38 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 2.4 g | 0.53 g | -77.9% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.12 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 2.1 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 3.3 mg | 5.04 mg | +52.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Emmer buğdayı and Adzuki fasulyesi.
Adzuki fasulyesi has less energy per 100 g (329 kcal versus 338 kcal).
For measured Toplam Folat, Emmer buğdayı has 55 µg and Adzuki fasulyesi has 622 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: Emmer buğdayı 29, Adzuki fasulyesi 41.
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.