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
418 kcal
Score
29 / 100
At least one nutrition score lacks comparable measurements, so no overall winner is assigned.
Energy Diff
884 vs 418(-52.7%)
Score Diff
— vs 29
Higher energy
Fındık Yağı
Score leader
Insufficient data
Nutrient split
4 - 9 (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.
Fındık Yağı and Akçaağaç tohumu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Fındık Yağı has 884.0 kcal and Akçaağaç tohumu has 418.0 kcal. The difference is 466.0 kcal.
There are not enough comparable micronutrient measurements for a score comparison.
13 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Fındık Yağı | Akçaağaç tohumu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALA (18:3 n-3) | 0.1 g | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.35 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.42 mg | — |
| Bakir | — | 0.85 mg | — |
| Beta-sitosterol | 95 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 2.4 mg | — |
| Demir | 0 mg | 4.8 mg | — |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 11.5 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 47.2 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | 3699 kj | — | — |
| Fitosteroller | 120 mg | — | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 62 µg | — |
| Fosfor | — | 390 mg | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 14.2 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 0 mg | 145 mg | — |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0 g | 38.6 g | — |
| Kolesterol | 0 mg | — | — |
| Kül | 0 g | 3.7 g | — |
| Magnezyum | — | 180 mg | — |
| Mangan | — | 2.6 mg | — |
| MUFA 18:1 (oleik asit) | 77.8 g | — | — |
| Niasin | — | 2.1 mg | — |
| Potasyum | — | 650 mg | — |
| Protein | 0 g | 22.4 g | — |
| PUFA 18:2 (linoleik asit) | 10.1 g | — | — |
| SFA 16:0 (palmitik asit) | 5.1 g | — | — |
| SFA 18:0 (stearik asit) | 2.1 g | — | — |
| Sodyum | 0 mg | 9 mg | — |
| Su | 0 g | 18.5 g | — |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 7.4 g | 2.1 g | -71.6% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 78 g | 6.5 g | -91.7% |
| Toplam trans yağ asitleri | 0 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 100 g | 16.8 g | -83.2% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 10.2 g | 7.2 g | -29.4% |
| Toplam Şeker | 0 g | 4.2 g | — |
| Çinko | — | 3.2 mg | — |
Scientific answers to key differences between Fındık Yağı and Akçaağaç tohumu.
Akçaağaç tohumu has less energy per 100 g (418 kcal versus 884 kcal).
For measured Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri, Fındık Yağı has 78 g and Akçaağaç tohumu has 6.5 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: Fındık Yağı —, Akçaağaç tohumu 29.
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.