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
268.8 kcal
Score
42 / 100
Adana kebabı has a higher nutrition quality score (42) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
215 vs 268.8(+25.0%)
Score Diff
8 vs 42(+425.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Adana kebabı
Higher energy
Adana kebabı
Score leader
Adana kebabı
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.
İç pilav and Adana kebabı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, İç pilav has 215.0 kcal and Adana kebabı has 268.8 kcal. The difference is 53.8 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 8 and 42. 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 | İç pilav | Adana kebabı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 25 µg | 28 µg | +12.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.06 mg | — | — |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 2.1 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.03 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.32 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 1.2 mg | 4.2 mg | +250.0% |
| Demir | 0.8 mg | 1.9 mg | +137.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.5 g | 0.4 g | -73.3% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 0.9 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | 900 kj | — | — |
| Fosfor | 65 mg | 165 mg | +153.8% |
| Kalsiyum | 18 mg | 16 mg | -11.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 30.5 g | 1.2 g | -96.1% |
| Kolesterol | — | 75 mg | — |
| Kül | — | 1.9 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 16 mg | 18 mg | +12.5% |
| Niasin | 0.8 mg | 4.8 mg | +500.0% |
| Potasyum | 110 mg | 265 mg | +140.9% |
| Protein | 3.8 g | 16.5 g | +334.2% |
| Sodyum | 280 mg | 460 mg | +64.3% |
| Su | 55 g | 55.4 g | +0.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.8 g | 10.2 g | +264.3% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 9.1 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 8.5 g | 22 g | +158.8% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 1.1 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 2.2 g | 0.6 g | -72.7% |
| Çinko | 0.6 mg | 3.6 mg | +500.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between İç pilav and Adana kebabı.
İç pilav has less energy per 100 g (215 kcal versus 268.8 kcal).
For measured Niasin, İç pilav has 0.8 mg and Adana kebabı has 4.8 mg 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: İç pilav 8, Adana kebabı 42.
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.