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
69 kcal
Score
57 / 100
Abiyuch, Çiğ has a higher nutrition quality score (57) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
162 vs 69(-57.4%)
Score Diff
42 vs 57(+35.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Abiyuch, Çiğ
Higher energy
Kuşburnu, Taze
Score leader
Abiyuch, Çiğ
Nutrient split
13 - 4 (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.
Kuşburnu, Taze and Abiyuch, Çiğ are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Kuşburnu, Taze has 162.0 kcal and Abiyuch, Çiğ has 69.0 kcal. The difference is 93.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 42 and 57. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
17 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Kuşburnu, Taze | Abiyuch, Çiğ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (IU) | — | 100 iu | — |
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 217 µg | 5 µg | -97.7% |
| Alfa Karoten | — | 0 µg | — |
| Bakir | 0.113 mg | 0.06 mg | -46.9% |
| Beta Karoten | 2612 µg | 60 µg | -97.7% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 426 mg | 54.1 mg | -87.3% |
| Demir | 1.06 mg | 1.61 mg | +51.9% |
| Diyet lifi | 24.1 g | 5.3 g | -78.0% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 5.84 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | — | 290 kj | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 162 kcal | — | — |
| Fosfor | 61 mg | 47 mg | -23.0% |
| Fruktoz | — | 3.8 g | — |
| Galaktoz | — | 0 g | — |
| Glikoz | — | 4.5 g | — |
| Kalsiyum | 169 mg | 8 mg | -95.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 38.22 g | 17.6 g | -54.0% |
| Kül | — | 0.9 g | — |
| Laktoz | — | 0 g | — |
| Likopen | 6800 µg | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 69 mg | 24 mg | -65.2% |
| Maltoz | — | 0.2 g | — |
| Mangan | 1.02 mg | 0.18 mg | -82.4% |
| Potasyum | 429 mg | 304 mg | -29.1% |
| Protein | 1.6 g | 1.5 g | -6.3% |
| Retinol | — | 0 µg | — |
| Sakkaroz | — | 0.05 g | — |
| Sodyum | 4 mg | 20 mg | +400.0% |
| Su | 58.66 g | 79.9 g | +36.2% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 0.01 g | — |
| Toplam trans yağ asitleri | — | 0 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.34 g | 0.1 g | -70.6% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 8.55 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.25 mg | 0.31 mg | +24.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Kuşburnu, Taze and Abiyuch, Çiğ.
Abiyuch, Çiğ has less energy per 100 g (69 kcal versus 162 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Kuşburnu, Taze has 4 mg and Abiyuch, Çiğ has 20 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: Kuşburnu, Taze 42, Abiyuch, Çiğ 57.
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.