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.
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has a higher nutrition quality score (29) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
574 vs 654(+13.9%)
Score Diff
29 vs 15(-48.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu)
Higher energy
Ceviz
Score leader
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu)
Nutrient split
10 - 6 (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.
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) and Ceviz are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has 574.0 kcal and Ceviz has 654.0 kcal. The difference is 80.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 29 and 15. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
16 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) | Ceviz | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.2 mg | 0.34 mg | +70.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.15 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.25 mg | 0.53 mg | +112.0% |
| Bakir | 2.19 mg | 1.58 mg | -27.9% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 1.3 mg | — |
| Demir | 6 mg | 2.91 mg | -51.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.3 g | 6.7 g | +103.0% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.7 mg | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 574 kcal | — | — |
| Fosfor | 490 mg | 346 mg | -29.4% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 34.7 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | — | 98 mg | — |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 32.69 g | 13.71 g | -58.1% |
| Kül | — | 1.78 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 273 mg | 158 mg | -42.1% |
| Mangan | — | 3.41 mg | — |
| Niasin | — | 1.12 mg | — |
| Pantotenik asit | — | 0.57 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 565 mg | 441 mg | -21.9% |
| Protein | 15.31 g | 15.23 g | -0.5% |
| Sodyum | 308 mg | — | — |
| Su | 1.7 g | 4.07 g | +139.4% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 9.15 g | 6.13 g | -33.0% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 98 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 25.9 g | 8.93 g | -65.5% |
| Toplam yağ | 46.35 g | 65.21 g | +40.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 8.48 g | 47.17 g | +456.2% |
| Toplam Şeker | 5.01 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 5.6 mg | 3.09 mg | -44.8% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) and Ceviz.
Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has less energy per 100 g (574 kcal versus 654 kcal).
For measured Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri, Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) has 8.48 g and Ceviz has 47.17 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: Kaju Fıstığı (Kavrulmuş, Tuzlu) 29, Ceviz 15.
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.