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
16 kcal
Score
89 / 100
Yaprak kereviz has a higher nutrition quality score (89) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
454.6 vs 16(-96.5%)
Score Diff
3 vs 89(+2866.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yaprak kereviz
Higher energy
Pişmaniye
Score leader
Yaprak kereviz
Nutrient split
8 - 8 (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.
Pişmaniye and Yaprak kereviz are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Pişmaniye has 454.6 kcal and Yaprak kereviz has 16.0 kcal. The difference is 438.6 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 3 and 89. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
16 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Pişmaniye | Yaprak kereviz | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 150 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.06 mg | 0.05 mg | -16.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.03 mg | 0.06 mg | +100.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.08 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 15 mg | — |
| Demir | 1.1 mg | 0.8 mg | -27.3% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.2 g | 1.6 g | +33.3% |
| Enerji | 1904 kj | — | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 16 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 42 mg | 30 mg | -28.6% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | — | 100 µg | — |
| Kalsiyum | 18 mg | 80 mg | +344.4% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 76.5 g | 3 g | -96.1% |
| Kül | 0.5 g | 1.4 g | +180.0% |
| Magnezyum | 12 mg | 25 mg | +108.3% |
| Niasin | 0.75 mg | 0.4 mg | -46.7% |
| Potasyum | 65 mg | 300 mg | +361.5% |
| Protein | 4.1 g | 1.5 g | -63.4% |
| Sakkaroz | 50.8 g | — | — |
| Sodyum | 28 mg | 100 mg | +257.1% |
| Su | 4.2 g | 90 g | +2042.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 4.8 g | — | — |
| Toplam Folat | — | 35 µg | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 5.2 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 13.8 g | 0.15 g | -98.9% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 3.1 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 52.4 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 0.35 mg | 0.13 mg | -62.9% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Pişmaniye and Yaprak kereviz.
Yaprak kereviz has less energy per 100 g (16 kcal versus 454.6 kcal).
For measured Su, Pişmaniye has 4.2 g and Yaprak kereviz has 90 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: Pişmaniye 3, Yaprak kereviz 89.
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.