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
Hibiskus çayı has a higher nutrition quality score (91) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
1 vs 60(+5900.0%)
Score Diff
91 vs 33(-63.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Hibiskus çayı
Higher energy
Kent mango
Score leader
Hibiskus çayı
Nutrient split
2 - 14 (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.
Hibiskus çayı and Kent mango are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Hibiskus çayı has 1.0 kcal and Kent mango has 60.0 kcal. The difference is 59.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 91 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 | Hibiskus çayı | Kent mango | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 54 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.028 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.038 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.119 mg | — |
| Bakir | 0.002 mg | 0.111 mg | +5450.0% |
| Beta Karoten | — | 640 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 1.2 mg | 36.4 mg | +2933.3% |
| Demir | 0.08 mg | 0.16 mg | +100.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 1.6 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.9 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 43 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 1 mg | 14 mg | +1300.0% |
| Fruktoz | — | 4.68 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.01 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 4.2 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 8 mg | 11 mg | +37.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0.08 g | 14.98 g | +18625.0% |
| Kül | — | 0.36 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 3 mg | 10 mg | +233.3% |
| Mangan | 0.012 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.04 mg | 0.669 mg | +1572.5% |
| Potasyum | 9 mg | 168 mg | +1766.7% |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.82 g | — |
| Sakkaroz | — | 6.97 g | — |
| Sodyum | 4 mg | 1 mg | -75.0% |
| Su | 99.58 g | 83.46 g | -16.2% |
| Toplam Folat | 1 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0 g | 0.38 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 0 g | 13.66 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.01 mg | 0.09 mg | +800.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Hibiskus çayı and Kent mango.
Hibiskus çayı has less energy per 100 g (1 kcal versus 60 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Hibiskus çayı has 0.08 g and Kent mango has 14.98 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: Hibiskus çayı 91, 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.