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
125 kcal
Score
26 / 100
Kilis tava has a higher nutrition quality score (55) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
180.6 vs 125(-30.8%)
Score Diff
55 vs 26(-52.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Kilis tava
Higher energy
Kilis tava
Score leader
Kilis tava
Nutrient split
14 - 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.
Kilis tava and Analı kızlı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Kilis tava has 180.6 kcal and Analı kızlı has 125.0 kcal. The difference is 55.6 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 55 and 26. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
20 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Kilis tava | Analı kızlı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 36 µg | 28 µg | -22.2% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.11 mg | — |
| B12 Vitamini | 1.45 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.08 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.24 mg | 0.14 mg | -41.7% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 12.5 mg | 2.6 mg | -79.2% |
| Demir | 1.85 mg | 1.45 mg | -21.6% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.4 g | 2.3 g | +64.3% |
| Fosfor | 135 mg | 78 mg | -42.2% |
| Kalsiyum | 22 mg | 24 mg | +9.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 3.2 g | 14.2 g | +343.8% |
| Kolesterol | 42 mg | 12 mg | -71.4% |
| Kül | — | 1.2 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 18 mg | 26 mg | +44.4% |
| Niasin | 3.4 mg | 1.65 mg | -51.5% |
| Potasyum | 320 mg | 220 mg | -31.3% |
| Protein | 11.8 g | 5.6 g | -52.5% |
| Sodyum | 310 mg | 325 mg | +4.8% |
| Su | 68.2 g | 76.2 g | +11.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 5.2 g | 1.75 g | -66.3% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 34 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 5.8 g | 2.15 g | -62.9% |
| Toplam yağ | 13.4 g | 5.1 g | -61.9% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.1 g | 0.82 g | -25.5% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.6 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 2.8 mg | 1.12 mg | -60.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kilis tava and Analı kızlı.
Analı kızlı has less energy per 100 g (125 kcal versus 180.6 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Kilis tava has 3.2 g and Analı kızlı has 14.2 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: Kilis tava 55, Analı kızlı 26.
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.