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
132 kcal
Score
30 / 100
Hongeohoe has a higher nutrition quality score (52) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
88 vs 132(+50.0%)
Score Diff
52 vs 30(-42.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Hongeohoe
Higher energy
Mi quang
Score leader
Hongeohoe
Nutrient split
14 - 8 (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.
Hongeohoe and Mi quang are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Hongeohoe has 88.0 kcal and Mi quang has 132.0 kcal. The difference is 44.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 52 and 30. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
22 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Hongeohoe | Mi quang | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 26 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.04 mg | 0.08 mg | +100.0% |
| B12 Vitamini | 2.45 µg | 0.32 µg | -86.9% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.13 mg | 0.06 mg | -53.8% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.26 mg | 0.12 mg | -53.8% |
| Bakir | 0.06 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 145 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 4.2 mg | — |
| Demir | 0.9 mg | 1.15 mg | +27.8% |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 1.2 g | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 21 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 215 mg | 86 mg | -60.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 65 mg | 34 mg | -47.7% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0 g | 16.5 g | — |
| Kolesterol | 54 mg | 24 mg | -55.6% |
| Kül | 2.2 g | 1.2 g | -45.5% |
| Magnezyum | 28 mg | 18 mg | -35.7% |
| Niasin | 3.4 mg | 1.85 mg | -45.6% |
| Potasyum | 320 mg | 168 mg | -47.5% |
| Protein | 20.2 g | 6.4 g | -68.3% |
| Selenyum | 36.8 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 490 mg | 385 mg | -21.4% |
| Su | 76.8 g | 74.2 g | -3.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.21 g | 1.25 g | +495.2% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.18 g | 1.82 g | +911.1% |
| Toplam yağ | 0.8 g | 4.5 g | +462.5% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.27 g | 1.12 g | +314.8% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 1.1 g | — |
| Çinko | 1.15 mg | 0.82 mg | -28.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Hongeohoe and Mi quang.
Hongeohoe has less energy per 100 g (88 kcal versus 132 kcal).
For measured Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri, Hongeohoe has 0.18 g and Mi quang has 1.82 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: Hongeohoe 52, Mi quang 30.
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.