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
242 kcal
Score
29 / 100
Kuşburnu marmeladı has a higher nutrition quality score (29) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
118 vs 242(+105.1%)
Score Diff
0 vs 29(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kuşburnu marmeladı
Higher energy
Kuşburnu marmeladı
Score leader
Kuşburnu marmeladı
Nutrient split
12 - 4 (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.
Kereviz tuzu and Kuşburnu marmeladı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Kereviz tuzu has 118.0 kcal and Kuşburnu marmeladı has 242.0 kcal. The difference is 124.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 0 and 29. 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 | Kereviz tuzu | Kuşburnu marmeladı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 43.3 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.1 mg | 0.022 mg | -78.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.11 mg | 0.054 mg | -50.9% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.07 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.15 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 520 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0 mg | 68.5 mg | — |
| Demir | 13.5 mg | 1.15 mg | -91.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.6 g | 4.1 g | +13.9% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 242 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | — | 24 mg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 372 mg | 62 mg | -83.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 12.3 g | 61.2 g | +397.6% |
| Kül | 71 g | 0.75 g | -98.9% |
| Likopen | — | 1820 µg | — |
| Magnezyum | 132 mg | 28 mg | -78.8% |
| Mangan | 0.6 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.9 mg | 0.48 mg | -46.7% |
| Potasyum | 420 mg | 245 mg | -41.7% |
| Protein | 5.4 g | 0.95 g | -82.4% |
| Sodyum | 28000 mg | 8 mg | -100.0% |
| Su | 3 g | 36.8 g | +1126.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.2 g | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.5 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 7.5 g | 0.35 g | -95.3% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.8 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 54.6 g | — |
| Çinko | 2 mg | 0.32 mg | -84.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kereviz tuzu and Kuşburnu marmeladı.
Kereviz tuzu has less energy per 100 g (118 kcal versus 242 kcal).
For measured Su, Kereviz tuzu has 3 g and Kuşburnu marmeladı has 36.8 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: Kereviz tuzu 0, Kuşburnu marmeladı 29.
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.