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
368 kcal
Score
32 / 100
Altın kinoa has a higher nutrition quality score (32) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
338 vs 368(+8.9%)
Score Diff
29 vs 32(+10.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Altın kinoa
Higher energy
Altın kinoa
Score leader
Altın kinoa
Nutrient split
9 - 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 Altın kinoa 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 Altın kinoa has 368.0 kcal. The difference is 30.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 29 and 32. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
22 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Emmer buğdayı | Altın kinoa | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.45 mg | 0.36 mg | -20.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.15 mg | 0.32 mg | +113.3% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.38 mg | 0.49 mg | +28.9% |
| Bakir | 0.51 mg | 0.59 mg | +15.7% |
| Demir | 4.4 mg | 4.57 mg | +3.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 10.7 g | 7 g | -34.6% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.85 mg | 2.44 mg | +187.1% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 368 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 400 mg | 457 mg | +14.2% |
| Kalsiyum | 40 mg | 47 mg | +17.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 65.3 g | 64.16 g | -1.7% |
| Kül | 1.9 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 130 mg | 197 mg | +51.5% |
| Mangan | 3.2 mg | 2 mg | -37.5% |
| Niasin | 6.4 mg | 1.52 mg | -76.3% |
| Potasyum | 440 mg | 563 mg | +28.0% |
| Protein | 14.6 g | 14.12 g | -3.3% |
| Selenyum | 42.5 µg | 8.5 µg | -80.0% |
| Sodyum | 5 mg | 5 mg | 0.0% |
| Su | 10.4 g | 13.28 g | +27.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.42 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | 55 µg | 184 µg | +234.5% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.38 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 2.4 g | 6.07 g | +152.9% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.12 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 2.1 g | 0.1 g | -95.2% |
| Çinko | 3.3 mg | 3.1 mg | -6.1% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Emmer buğdayı and Altın kinoa.
Emmer buğdayı has less energy per 100 g (338 kcal versus 368 kcal).
For measured Toplam Folat, Emmer buğdayı has 55 µg and Altın kinoa has 184 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, Altın kinoa 32.
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.