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
15 kcal
Score
85 / 100
Madımak Otu has a higher nutrition quality score (100) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
42 vs 15(-64.3%)
Score Diff
100 vs 85(-15.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Madımak Otu
Higher energy
Madımak Otu
Score leader
Madımak Otu
Nutrient split
20 - 1 (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.
Madımak Otu and Acur are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Madımak Otu has 42.0 kcal and Acur has 15.0 kcal. The difference is 27.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 100 and 85. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
21 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Madımak Otu | Acur | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 320 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.09 mg | 0.027 mg | -70.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.16 mg | 0.033 mg | -79.4% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.19 mg | 0.04 mg | -78.9% |
| Bakir | 0.22 mg | 0.041 mg | -81.4% |
| Beta Karoten | 3840 µg | 45 µg | -98.8% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 62 mg | 2.8 mg | -95.5% |
| Demir | 4.1 mg | 0.28 mg | -93.2% |
| Diyet lifi | 3.4 g | 0.5 g | -85.3% |
| Folat DFE | — | 7 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 46 mg | 24 mg | -47.8% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 235 µg | 16.4 µg | -93.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 215 mg | 16 mg | -92.6% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 6.8 g | 3.63 g | -46.6% |
| Kül | 1.9 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 54 mg | 13 mg | -75.9% |
| Mangan | 0.58 mg | 0.079 mg | -86.4% |
| Niasin | 0.88 mg | 0.098 mg | -88.9% |
| Potasyum | 410 mg | 147 mg | -64.1% |
| Protein | 2.9 g | 0.65 g | -77.6% |
| Sodyum | 16 mg | 2 mg | -87.5% |
| Su | 85.4 g | 95.23 g | +11.5% |
| Toplam Folat | 75 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.5 g | 0.11 g | -78.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 1.67 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.82 mg | 0.2 mg | -75.6% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Madımak Otu and Acur.
Acur has less energy per 100 g (15 kcal versus 42 kcal).
For measured Beta Karoten, Madımak Otu has 3840 µg and Acur has 45 µg 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: Madımak Otu 100, Acur 85.
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.