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
60 kcal
Score
33 / 100
Kent mango has a higher nutrition quality score (33) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
379 vs 60(-84.2%)
Score Diff
27 vs 33(+22.2%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kent mango
Higher energy
Glutensiz yulaf
Score leader
Kent mango
Nutrient split
15 - 1 (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.
Glutensiz yulaf and Kent mango are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Glutensiz yulaf has 379.0 kcal and Kent mango has 60.0 kcal. The difference is 319.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 27 and 33. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
16 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Glutensiz yulaf | Kent mango | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 54 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.46 mg | 0.028 mg | -93.9% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.1 mg | 0.038 mg | -62.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.119 mg | — |
| Bakir | 0.39 mg | 0.111 mg | -71.5% |
| Beta Karoten | — | 640 µg | — |
| Beta-glukan | 4 g | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 36.4 mg | — |
| Demir | 4.25 mg | 0.16 mg | -96.2% |
| Diyet lifi | 10.1 g | 1.6 g | -84.2% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.9 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 43 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 410 mg | 14 mg | -96.6% |
| Fruktoz | — | 4.68 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.01 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 4.2 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 52 mg | 11 mg | -78.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 67.7 g | 14.98 g | -77.9% |
| Kül | — | 0.36 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 138 mg | 10 mg | -92.8% |
| Mangan | 3.63 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 1.1 mg | 0.669 mg | -39.2% |
| Potasyum | 362 mg | 168 mg | -53.6% |
| Protein | 13.15 g | 0.82 g | -93.8% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 6.97 g | — |
| Sodyum | 2 mg | 1 mg | -50.0% |
| Su | 8.2 g | 83.46 g | +917.8% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.11 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | 32 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.18 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 6.52 g | 0.38 g | -94.2% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.54 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 13.66 g | — |
| Çinko | 3.64 mg | 0.09 mg | -97.5% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Glutensiz yulaf and Kent mango.
Kent mango has less energy per 100 g (60 kcal versus 379 kcal).
For measured Su, Glutensiz yulaf has 8.2 g and Kent mango has 83.46 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: Glutensiz yulaf 27, Kent mango 33.
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.