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
395 kcal
Score
8 / 100
Mafroukeh has a higher nutrition quality score (8) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
204 vs 395(+93.6%)
Score Diff
5 vs 8(+60.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Mafroukeh
Higher energy
Mafroukeh
Score leader
Mafroukeh
Nutrient split
2 - 16 (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.
Jeungpyeon and Mafroukeh are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Jeungpyeon has 204.0 kcal and Mafroukeh has 395.0 kcal. The difference is 191.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 5 and 8. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
18 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Jeungpyeon | Mafroukeh | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 78 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.03 mg | 0.12 mg | +300.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.02 mg | 0.15 mg | +650.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.05 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 0.35 mg | 1.3 mg | +271.4% |
| Diyet lifi | 0.9 g | 2.4 g | +166.7% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 395 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 45 mg | 115 mg | +155.6% |
| Kalsiyum | 9 mg | 85 mg | +844.4% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 47.9 g | 49.5 g | +3.3% |
| Kolesterol | — | 24 mg | — |
| Kül | 1 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 12 mg | 38 mg | +216.7% |
| Mangan | 0.32 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.65 mg | 0.8 mg | +23.1% |
| Potasyum | 42 mg | 220 mg | +423.8% |
| Protein | 2.85 g | 6.8 g | +138.6% |
| Sodyum | 215 mg | 45 mg | -79.1% |
| Su | 47.8 g | 31.5 g | -34.1% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.12 g | 8.2 g | +6733.3% |
| Toplam Folat | 8 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 6.5 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.45 g | 18.2 g | +3944.4% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.16 g | 2.1 g | +1212.5% |
| Toplam Şeker | 12.4 g | 31.2 g | +151.6% |
| Çinko | 0.48 mg | 0.85 mg | +77.1% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Jeungpyeon and Mafroukeh.
Jeungpyeon has less energy per 100 g (204 kcal versus 395 kcal).
For measured Toplam doymus yağ asitleri, Jeungpyeon has 0.12 g and Mafroukeh has 8.2 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: Jeungpyeon 5, Mafroukeh 8.
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.