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
51 kcal
Score
44 / 100
Şekerpare kayısı has a higher nutrition quality score (44) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
118 vs 51(-56.8%)
Score Diff
0 vs 44(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Şekerpare kayısı
Higher energy
Kereviz tuzu
Score leader
Şekerpare kayısı
Nutrient split
13 - 2 (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 Şekerpare kayısı 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 Şekerpare kayısı has 51.0 kcal. The difference is 67.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 0 and 44. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
15 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Kereviz tuzu | Şekerpare kayısı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 96 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.1 mg | 0.03 mg | -70.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.11 mg | 0.04 mg | -63.6% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.07 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.15 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 1094 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0 mg | 10 mg | — |
| Demir | 13.5 mg | 0.39 mg | -97.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.6 g | 2.1 g | -41.7% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 0.89 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 9 µg | — |
| Fosfor | — | 23 mg | — |
| Fruktoz | — | 0.94 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 2.37 g | — |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 3.3 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 372 mg | 13 mg | -96.5% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 12.3 g | 12.2 g | -0.8% |
| Kül | 71 g | 0.71 g | -99.0% |
| Magnezyum | 132 mg | 10 mg | -92.4% |
| Mangan | 0.6 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.9 mg | 0.6 mg | -33.3% |
| Potasyum | 420 mg | 259 mg | -38.3% |
| Protein | 5.4 g | 1.4 g | -74.1% |
| Sakkaroz | — | 5.87 g | — |
| Sodyum | 28000 mg | — | — |
| Su | 3 g | 85.3 g | +2743.3% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.2 g | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.5 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 7.5 g | 0.39 g | -94.8% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.8 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 9.24 g | — |
| Çinko | 2 mg | 0.18 mg | -91.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kereviz tuzu and Şekerpare kayısı.
Şekerpare kayısı has less energy per 100 g (51 kcal versus 118 kcal).
For measured Su, Kereviz tuzu has 3 g and Şekerpare kayısı has 85.3 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, Şekerpare kayısı 44.
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.