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
Hibiskus çayı has a higher nutrition quality score (91) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
1 vs 51(+5000.0%)
Score Diff
91 vs 44(-51.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Hibiskus çayı
Higher energy
Şekerpare kayısı
Score leader
Hibiskus çayı
Nutrient split
1 - 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 Şekerpare kayısı 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 Şekerpare kayısı has 51.0 kcal. The difference is 50.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 91 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 | Hibiskus çayı | Şekerpare kayısı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 96 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.03 mg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.04 mg | — |
| Bakir | 0.002 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 1094 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 1.2 mg | 10 mg | +733.3% |
| Demir | 0.08 mg | 0.39 mg | +387.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 2.1 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.89 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 9 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 1 mg | 23 mg | +2200.0% |
| Fruktoz | — | 0.94 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.37 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 3.3 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 8 mg | 13 mg | +62.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0.08 g | 12.2 g | +15150.0% |
| Kül | — | 0.71 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 3 mg | 10 mg | +233.3% |
| Mangan | 0.012 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.04 mg | 0.6 mg | +1400.0% |
| Potasyum | 9 mg | 259 mg | +2777.8% |
| Protein | 0 g | 1.4 g | — |
| Sakkaroz | — | 5.87 g | — |
| Sodyum | 4 mg | — | — |
| Su | 99.58 g | 85.3 g | -14.3% |
| Toplam Folat | 1 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0 g | 0.39 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 0 g | 9.24 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.01 mg | 0.18 mg | +1700.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Hibiskus çayı and Şekerpare kayısı.
Hibiskus çayı has less energy per 100 g (1 kcal versus 51 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Hibiskus çayı has 0.08 g and Şekerpare kayısı has 12.2 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, 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.