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
Patlıcan musakka has a higher nutrition quality score (35) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
132.5 vs 125(-5.7%)
Score Diff
35 vs 26(-25.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Patlıcan musakka
Higher energy
Patlıcan musakka
Score leader
Patlıcan musakka
Nutrient split
9 - 11 (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.
Patlıcan musakka and Analı kızlı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Patlıcan musakka has 132.5 kcal and Analı kızlı has 125.0 kcal. The difference is 7.5 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 35 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 | Patlıcan musakka | Analı kızlı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 14 µg | 28 µg | +100.0% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | — | 0.11 mg | — |
| B12 Vitamini | 0.35 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.08 mg | — |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.12 mg | 0.14 mg | +16.7% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 8.5 mg | 2.6 mg | -69.4% |
| Demir | 0.9 mg | 1.45 mg | +61.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 2.4 g | 2.3 g | -4.2% |
| Folat DFE | 18 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 68 mg | 78 mg | +14.7% |
| Kalsiyum | 22 mg | 24 mg | +9.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 6.2 g | 14.2 g | +129.0% |
| Kolesterol | 15 mg | 12 mg | -20.0% |
| Kül | — | 1.2 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 18 mg | 26 mg | +44.4% |
| Niasin | 1.45 mg | 1.65 mg | +13.8% |
| Potasyum | 284 mg | 220 mg | -22.5% |
| Protein | 5.8 g | 5.6 g | -3.4% |
| Sodyum | 215 mg | 325 mg | +51.2% |
| Su | 75.1 g | 76.2 g | +1.5% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.8 g | 1.75 g | -37.5% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 34 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 4.2 g | 2.15 g | -48.8% |
| Toplam yağ | 9.4 g | 5.1 g | -45.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.5 g | 0.82 g | -45.3% |
| Çinko | 0.72 mg | 1.12 mg | +55.6% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Patlıcan musakka and Analı kızlı.
Analı kızlı has less energy per 100 g (125 kcal versus 132.5 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Patlıcan musakka has 6.2 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: Patlıcan musakka 35, 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.