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
118 kcal
Score
0 / 100
Gyokuro çayı has a higher nutrition quality score (90) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
2 vs 118(+5800.0%)
Score Diff
90 vs 0(-100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Gyokuro çayı
Higher energy
Kereviz tuzu
Score leader
Gyokuro çayı
Nutrient split
2 - 15 (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.
Gyokuro çayı and Kereviz tuzu are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Gyokuro çayı has 2.0 kcal and Kereviz tuzu has 118.0 kcal. The difference is 116.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 90 and 0. 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 | Gyokuro çayı | Kereviz tuzu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.01 mg | 0.1 mg | +900.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.04 mg | 0.11 mg | +175.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.07 mg | — |
| Bakir | — | 0.15 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 19 mg | 0 mg | -100.0% |
| Demir | 0.03 mg | 13.5 mg | +44900.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 3.6 g | — |
| Florür | 180 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 4 mg | — | — |
| Kafein | 160 mg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 2 mg | 372 mg | +18500.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0.3 g | 12.3 g | +4000.0% |
| Kül | 0.2 g | 71 g | +35400.0% |
| Magnezyum | 3 mg | 132 mg | +4300.0% |
| Mangan | 0.22 mg | 0.6 mg | +172.7% |
| Niasin | 0.1 mg | 0.9 mg | +800.0% |
| Potasyum | 34 mg | 420 mg | +1135.3% |
| Protein | 0.4 g | 5.4 g | +1250.0% |
| Sodyum | 2 mg | 28000 mg | +1399900.0% |
| Su | 99.1 g | 3 g | -97.0% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 1.2 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 16 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 4.5 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0 g | 7.5 g | — |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 1.8 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 0 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 0.06 mg | 2 mg | +3233.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Gyokuro çayı and Kereviz tuzu.
Gyokuro çayı has less energy per 100 g (2 kcal versus 118 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Gyokuro çayı has 2 mg and Kereviz tuzu has 28000 mg 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: Gyokuro çayı 90, Kereviz tuzu 0.
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.