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
292 kcal
Score
32 / 100
Antep peyniri has a higher nutrition quality score (32) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
344 vs 292(-15.1%)
Score Diff
29 vs 32(+10.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Antep peyniri
Higher energy
Erzincan Şavak Tulumu
Score leader
Antep peyniri
Nutrient split
9 - 6 (tie: 2)
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.
Erzincan Şavak Tulumu and Antep peyniri are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Erzincan Şavak Tulumu has 344.0 kcal and Antep peyniri has 292.0 kcal. The difference is 52.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 29 and 32. 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 | Erzincan Şavak Tulumu | Antep peyniri | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 260 µg | 195 µg | -25.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.04 mg | — | — |
| B12 Vitamini | 1.5 µg | 1.45 µg | -3.3% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.38 mg | 0.36 mg | -5.3% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.08 mg | — | — |
| D Vitamini | 0.6 µg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.4 mg | 0.42 mg | +5.0% |
| Diyet lifi | — | 0 g | — |
| Enerji | — | 1221 kj | — |
| Fosfor | 450 mg | 450 mg | 0.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 680 mg | 680 mg | 0.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 1.5 g | 1.8 g | +20.0% |
| Kolesterol | 85 mg | 72 mg | -15.3% |
| Kül | 5.2 g | 6.7 g | +28.8% |
| Laktoz | — | 1.2 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 24 mg | 25 mg | +4.2% |
| Potasyum | 125 mg | 115 mg | -8.0% |
| Protein | 22.5 g | 21.5 g | -4.4% |
| Retinol | — | 190 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 1420 mg | 1250 mg | -12.0% |
| Su | 42.8 g | 48 g | +12.1% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 18.5 g | 13.8 g | -25.4% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 5.8 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 28 g | 22 g | -21.4% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.85 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 1.2 g | — |
| Çinko | 3.1 mg | 3.2 mg | +3.2% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Erzincan Şavak Tulumu and Antep peyniri.
Antep peyniri has less energy per 100 g (292 kcal versus 344 kcal).
For measured Kül, Erzincan Şavak Tulumu has 5.2 g and Antep peyniri has 6.7 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: Erzincan Şavak Tulumu 29, Antep peyniri 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.