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
Analı kızlı has a higher nutrition quality score (26) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
322 vs 125(-61.2%)
Score Diff
13 vs 26(+100.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Analı kızlı
Higher energy
Kumru Ekmeği
Score leader
Analı kızlı
Nutrient split
16 - 3 (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.
Kumru Ekmeği and Analı kızlı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Kumru Ekmeği has 322.0 kcal and Analı kızlı has 125.0 kcal. The difference is 197.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 13 and 26. 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 | Kumru Ekmeği | Analı kızlı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 28 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.28 mg | 0.11 mg | -60.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.15 mg | 0.08 mg | -46.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.14 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 2.6 mg | — |
| Demir | 2.4 mg | 1.45 mg | -39.6% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.4 g | 2.3 g | -32.4% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 322 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | 68 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 135 mg | 78 mg | -42.2% |
| Kalsiyum | 85 mg | 24 mg | -71.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 53.5 g | 14.2 g | -73.5% |
| Kolesterol | — | 12 mg | — |
| Kül | 1.9 g | 1.2 g | -36.8% |
| Magnezyum | 42 mg | 26 mg | -38.1% |
| Niasin | 2.8 mg | 1.65 mg | -41.1% |
| Potasyum | 165 mg | 220 mg | +33.3% |
| Protein | 10.2 g | 5.6 g | -45.1% |
| Sodyum | 480 mg | 325 mg | -32.3% |
| Su | 30.2 g | 76.2 g | +152.3% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 1.3 g | 1.75 g | +34.6% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 34 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 2.6 g | 2.15 g | -17.3% |
| Toplam yağ | 7.8 g | 5.1 g | -34.6% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 3.4 g | 0.82 g | -75.9% |
| Toplam Şeker | 2.1 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 1.2 mg | 1.12 mg | -6.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kumru Ekmeği and Analı kızlı.
Analı kızlı has less energy per 100 g (125 kcal versus 322 kcal).
For measured Su, Kumru Ekmeği has 30.2 g and Analı kızlı has 76.2 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: Kumru Ekmeği 13, 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.