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
628 kcal
Score
21 / 100
Marcona bademi has a higher nutrition quality score (21) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
118 vs 628(+432.2%)
Score Diff
0 vs 21(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Marcona bademi
Higher energy
Marcona bademi
Score leader
Marcona bademi
Nutrient split
4 - 15 (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 Marcona bademi 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 Marcona bademi has 628.0 kcal. The difference is 510.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 0 and 21. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
19 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Kereviz tuzu | Marcona bademi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.1 mg | 0.21 mg | +110.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.11 mg | 1.01 mg | +818.2% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.07 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.15 mg | 1 mg | +566.7% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 13.5 mg | 3.7 mg | -72.6% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.6 g | 10.5 g | +191.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 25.6 mg | — |
| Fosfor | — | 480 mg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 372 mg | 264 mg | -29.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 12.3 g | 17.8 g | +44.7% |
| Kül | 71 g | 2.8 g | -96.1% |
| Magnezyum | 132 mg | 270 mg | +104.5% |
| Mangan | 0.6 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.9 mg | 3.6 mg | +300.0% |
| Potasyum | 420 mg | 705 mg | +67.9% |
| Protein | 5.4 g | 19.5 g | +261.1% |
| Sodyum | 28000 mg | 1 mg | -100.0% |
| Su | 3 g | 3.5 g | +16.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.2 g | 4.6 g | +283.3% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 44 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.5 g | 36.8 g | +717.8% |
| Toplam yağ | 7.5 g | 56.2 g | +649.3% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.8 g | 12.4 g | +588.9% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 4.3 g | — |
| Çinko | 2 mg | 3.1 mg | +55.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kereviz tuzu and Marcona bademi.
Kereviz tuzu has less energy per 100 g (118 kcal versus 628 kcal).
For measured B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin), Kereviz tuzu has 0.11 mg and Marcona bademi has 1.01 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: Kereviz tuzu 0, Marcona bademi 21.
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.