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
28 kcal
Score
71 / 100
Hardal Otu has a higher nutrition quality score (92) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
27 vs 28(+3.7%)
Score Diff
92 vs 71(-22.8%)
OVERALL WINNER
Hardal Otu
Higher energy
Afrika patlıcanı
Score leader
Hardal Otu
Nutrient split
17 - 3 (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.
Hardal Otu and Afrika patlıcanı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Hardal Otu has 27.0 kcal and Afrika patlıcanı has 28.0 kcal. The difference is 1.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 92 and 71. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
20 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Hardal Otu | Afrika patlıcanı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 525 µg | 5 µg | -99.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.08 mg | 0.05 mg | -37.5% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.11 mg | 0.04 mg | -63.6% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.18 mg | 0.08 mg | -55.6% |
| Bakir | 0.17 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | 6300 µg | 60 µg | -99.0% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 70 mg | 5 mg | -92.9% |
| Demir | 1.64 mg | 0.6 mg | -63.4% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.2 g | 2.5 g | -21.9% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 2.01 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | — | 117 kj | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 22 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 58 mg | 24 mg | -58.6% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 257.5 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 115 mg | 18 mg | -84.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 4.67 g | 5.9 g | +26.3% |
| Magnezyum | 32 mg | 16 mg | -50.0% |
| Mangan | 0.48 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.8 mg | 0.6 mg | -25.0% |
| Potasyum | 384 mg | 230 mg | -40.1% |
| Protein | 2.86 g | 1.2 g | -58.0% |
| Sodyum | 20 mg | 3 mg | -85.0% |
| Su | 90.7 g | 91.2 g | +0.6% |
| Toplam Folat | 187 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.42 g | 0.2 g | -52.4% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.59 g | 2.8 g | +76.1% |
| Çinko | 0.25 mg | 0.17 mg | -32.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Hardal Otu and Afrika patlıcanı.
Hardal Otu has less energy per 100 g (27 kcal versus 28 kcal).
For measured A Vitamini (RAE), Hardal Otu has 525 µg and Afrika patlıcanı has 5 µg 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: Hardal Otu 92, Afrika patlıcanı 71.
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.