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
51 kcal
Score
44 / 100
Şekerpare kayısı has a higher nutrition quality score (44) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
379 vs 51(-86.5%)
Score Diff
27 vs 44(+63.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Şekerpare kayısı
Higher energy
Glutensiz yulaf
Score leader
Şekerpare kayısı
Nutrient split
13 - 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 Şekerpare kayısı 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 Şekerpare kayısı has 51.0 kcal. The difference is 328.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 27 and 44. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
14 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Glutensiz yulaf | Şekerpare kayısı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 96 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.46 mg | 0.03 mg | -93.5% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.1 mg | 0.04 mg | -60.0% |
| Bakir | 0.39 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 1094 µg | — |
| Beta-glukan | 4 g | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 10 mg | — |
| Demir | 4.25 mg | 0.39 mg | -90.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 10.1 g | 2.1 g | -79.2% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.89 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 9 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 410 mg | 23 mg | -94.4% |
| Fruktoz | — | 0.94 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.37 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 3.3 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 52 mg | 13 mg | -75.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 67.7 g | 12.2 g | -82.0% |
| Kül | — | 0.71 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 138 mg | 10 mg | -92.8% |
| Mangan | 3.63 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 1.1 mg | 0.6 mg | -45.5% |
| Potasyum | 362 mg | 259 mg | -28.5% |
| Protein | 13.15 g | 1.4 g | -89.4% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 5.87 g | — |
| Sodyum | 2 mg | — | — |
| Su | 8.2 g | 85.3 g | +940.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.11 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | 32 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.18 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 6.52 g | 0.39 g | -94.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.54 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 9.24 g | — |
| Çinko | 3.64 mg | 0.18 mg | -95.1% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Glutensiz yulaf and Şekerpare kayısı.
Şekerpare kayısı has less energy per 100 g (51 kcal versus 379 kcal).
For measured Su, Glutensiz yulaf has 8.2 g and Şekerpare kayısı has 85.3 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, Şekerpare kayısı 44.
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.