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
70 kcal
Score
40 / 100
Acai Berry has a higher nutrition quality score (40) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
46 vs 70(+52.2%)
Score Diff
35 vs 40(+14.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Acai Berry
Higher energy
Acai Berry
Score leader
Acai Berry
Nutrient split
5 - 12 (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.
Erik (Can Erik) and Acai Berry are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Erik (Can Erik) has 46.0 kcal and Acai Berry has 70.0 kcal. The difference is 24.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 35 and 40. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
17 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Erik (Can Erik) | Acai Berry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 17 µg | 65 µg | +282.4% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.028 mg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.026 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.029 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.057 mg | 0.15 mg | +163.2% |
| Beta Karoten | 190 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 9.5 mg | 9 mg | -5.3% |
| Demir | 0.17 mg | 1.2 mg | +605.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.4 g | 3.5 g | +150.0% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.26 mg | 1.5 mg | +476.9% |
| Fosfor | 16 mg | — | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 6.4 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 16 mg | 35 mg | +118.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 11.42 g | 4 g | -65.0% |
| Kül | 0.4 g | 0.8 g | +100.0% |
| Magnezyum | 7 mg | 20 mg | +185.7% |
| Malik asit | 1150 mg | — | — |
| MUFA 18:1 (oleik asit) | — | 2.7 g | — |
| Niasin | 0.42 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 157 mg | 130 mg | -17.2% |
| Protein | 0.7 g | 1.2 g | +71.4% |
| PUFA 18:2 (linoleik asit) | — | 0.5 g | — |
| Sodyum | 1 mg | 7 mg | +600.0% |
| Su | 87.2 g | 85 g | -2.5% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 1.3 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 5 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 2.8 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.28 g | 5 g | +1685.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.6 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 8.5 g | 0.5 g | -94.1% |
| Çinko | 0.1 mg | 0.3 mg | +200.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Erik (Can Erik) and Acai Berry.
Erik (Can Erik) has less energy per 100 g (46 kcal versus 70 kcal).
For measured Toplam yağ, Erik (Can Erik) has 0.28 g and Acai Berry has 5 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: Erik (Can Erik) 35, Acai Berry 40.
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.