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
97 kcal
Score
29 / 100
Hibiskus çayı has a higher nutrition quality score (91) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
1 vs 97(+9600.0%)
Score Diff
91 vs 29(-68.1%)
OVERALL WINNER
Hibiskus çayı
Higher energy
Muz, Çiğ
Score leader
Hibiskus çayı
Nutrient split
4 - 13 (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 Muz, Çiğ 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 Muz, Çiğ has 97.0 kcal. The difference is 96.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 91 and 29. 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 | Hibiskus çayı | Muz, Çiğ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 1 µg | — |
| Alfa Karoten | — | 7 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.05 mg | — |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 0 µg | — |
| B12 Vitamini (eklenmiş) | — | 0 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.21 mg | — |
| Bakir | 0.002 mg | 0.1 mg | +4900.0% |
| Besin folati | — | 15 µg | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 8 µg | — |
| Beta kriptoksantin | — | 0 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 1.2 mg | 12 mg | +900.0% |
| D Vitamini | — | 0 µg | — |
| Demir | 0.08 mg | 0 mg | -100.0% |
| DHA (22:6 n-3) | — | 0 g | — |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 1.7 g | — |
| DPA (22:5 n-3) | — | 0 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.1 mg | — |
| E Vitamini (eklenmiş) | — | 0 mg | — |
| Enerji | — | 97 kj | — |
| EPA (20:5 n-3) | — | 0 g | — |
| Etil alkol | — | 0 g | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 15 µg | — |
| Folik asit | — | 0 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 1 mg | 22 mg | +2100.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 0.1 µg | — |
| Kafein | — | 0 mg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 8 mg | 5 mg | -37.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0.08 g | 22.71 g | +28287.5% |
| Kolesterol | — | 0 mg | — |
| Likopen | — | 0 µg | — |
| Lutein + zeaksantin | — | 22 µg | — |
| Magnezyum | 3 mg | 28 mg | +833.3% |
| Mangan | 0.012 mg | — | — |
| MUFA 16:1 | — | 0.01 g | — |
| MUFA 18:1 (oleik asit) | — | 0.02 g | — |
| MUFA 20:1 | — | 0 g | — |
| MUFA 22:1 | — | 0 g | — |
| Niasin | 0.04 mg | 0.65 mg | +1525.0% |
| Potasyum | 9 mg | 326 mg | +3522.2% |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.74 g | — |
| PUFA 18:2 (linoleik asit) | — | 0.05 g | — |
| PUFA 18:3 | — | 0.03 g | — |
| PUFA 18:4 | — | 0 g | — |
| PUFA 20:4 (arasidonik asit) | — | 0 g | — |
| Retinol | — | 0 µg | — |
| Selenyum | — | 0 µg | — |
| SFA 10:0 | — | 0 g | — |
| SFA 12:0 | — | 0 g | — |
| SFA 14:0 | — | 0 g | — |
| SFA 16:0 (palmitik asit) | — | 0.1 g | — |
| SFA 18:0 (stearik asit) | — | 0.01 g | — |
| SFA 4:0 (butirik asit) | — | 0 g | — |
| SFA 6:0 | — | 0 g | — |
| SFA 8:0 | — | 0 g | — |
| Sodyum | 4 mg | 0 mg | -100.0% |
| Su | 99.58 g | 75.6 g | -24.1% |
| Teobromin | — | 0 mg | — |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.11 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 1 µg | 15 µg | +1400.0% |
| Toplam Kolin | — | 9.8 mg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.03 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0 g | 0.28 g | — |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 0.07 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 0 g | 15.8 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.01 mg | 0.16 mg | +1500.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Hibiskus çayı and Muz, Çiğ.
Hibiskus çayı has less energy per 100 g (1 kcal versus 97 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Hibiskus çayı has 0.08 g and Muz, Çiğ has 22.71 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, Muz, Çiğ 29.
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.