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
14 kcal
Score
81 / 100
Aysberg marul has a higher nutrition quality score (81) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
74 vs 14(-81.1%)
Score Diff
59 vs 81(+37.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Aysberg marul
Higher energy
Lotus sapı
Score leader
Aysberg marul
Nutrient split
14 - 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.
Lotus sapı and Aysberg marul are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Lotus sapı has 74.0 kcal and Aysberg marul has 14.0 kcal. The difference is 60.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 59 and 81. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
18 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Lotus sapı | Aysberg marul | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 25 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.16 mg | 0.041 mg | -74.4% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.022 mg | 0.025 mg | +13.6% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.258 mg | 0.042 mg | -83.7% |
| Bakir | 0.257 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 299 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 44 mg | 2.8 mg | -93.6% |
| Demir | 1.16 mg | 0.41 mg | -64.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 4.9 g | 1.2 g | -75.5% |
| Folat DFE | — | 29 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 100 mg | 20 mg | -80.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 24.1 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 45 mg | 18 mg | -60.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 17.23 g | 2.97 g | -82.8% |
| Kül | 0.97 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 23 mg | 7 mg | -69.6% |
| Mangan | 0.261 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.4 mg | 0.123 mg | -69.3% |
| Pantotenik asit | 0.377 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 556 mg | 141 mg | -74.6% |
| Protein | 2.6 g | 0.9 g | -65.4% |
| Selenyum | 0.7 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 40 mg | 10 mg | -75.0% |
| Su | 79.1 g | 95.64 g | +20.9% |
| Toplam Folat | 13 µg | — | — |
| Toplam Kolin | 25.4 mg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.1 g | 0.14 g | +40.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 0.5 g | 1.97 g | +294.0% |
| Çinko | 0.39 mg | 0.15 mg | -61.5% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Lotus sapı and Aysberg marul.
Aysberg marul has less energy per 100 g (14 kcal versus 74 kcal).
For measured Toplam Şeker, Lotus sapı has 0.5 g and Aysberg marul has 1.97 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: Lotus sapı 59, Aysberg marul 81.
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.