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
202.7 kcal
Score
41 / 100
Sığır paça has a higher nutrition quality score (41) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
118 vs 202.7(+71.8%)
Score Diff
0 vs 41(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Sığır paça
Higher energy
Sığır paça
Score leader
Sığır paça
Nutrient split
9 - 7 (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 Sığır paça 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 Sığır paça has 202.7 kcal. The difference is 84.7 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 0 and 41. 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 | Sığır paça | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.1 mg | — | — |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 1.3 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.11 mg | — | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.07 mg | — | — |
| Bakir | 0.15 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0 mg | — | — |
| Demir | 13.5 mg | 2.1 mg | -84.4% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.6 g | 0 g | -100.0% |
| Fosfor | — | 105 mg | — |
| Glisin | — | 4.2 g | — |
| Hidroksiprolin | — | 2.1 g | — |
| Kalsiyum | 372 mg | 42 mg | -88.7% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 12.3 g | 0 g | -100.0% |
| Kolesterol | — | 85 mg | — |
| Kül | 71 g | 0.9 g | -98.7% |
| Magnezyum | 132 mg | 18 mg | -86.4% |
| Mangan | 0.6 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.9 mg | 1.4 mg | +55.6% |
| Potasyum | 420 mg | 145 mg | -65.5% |
| Prolin | — | 2.6 g | — |
| Protein | 5.4 g | 21.2 g | +292.6% |
| Sodyum | 28000 mg | 95 mg | -99.7% |
| Su | 3 g | 66.8 g | +2126.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.2 g | 5.4 g | +350.0% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.5 g | 5.8 g | +28.9% |
| Toplam yağ | 7.5 g | 13.1 g | +74.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.8 g | 0.6 g | -66.7% |
| Çinko | 2 mg | 2.4 mg | +20.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kereviz tuzu and Sığır paça.
Kereviz tuzu has less energy per 100 g (118 kcal versus 202.7 kcal).
For measured Su, Kereviz tuzu has 3 g and Sığır paça has 66.8 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, Sığır paça 41.
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.