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
275 kcal
Score
14 / 100
Tangbao has a higher nutrition quality score (20) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
195.6 vs 275(+40.6%)
Score Diff
20 vs 14(-30.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Tangbao
Higher energy
Amritsari kulcha
Score leader
Tangbao
Nutrient split
3 - 15 (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.
Tangbao and Amritsari kulcha are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Tangbao has 195.6 kcal and Amritsari kulcha has 275.0 kcal. The difference is 79.4 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 20 and 14. 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 | Tangbao | Amritsari kulcha | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 35 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.16 mg | 0.22 mg | +37.5% |
| B12 Vitamini | 0.35 µg | — | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.09 mg | 0.15 mg | +66.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 6.5 mg | — |
| Demir | 1.3 mg | 2.1 mg | +61.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 1 g | 2.8 g | +180.0% |
| Folat DFE | — | 45 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 85 mg | 110 mg | +29.4% |
| Kalsiyum | 18 mg | 45 mg | +150.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 20.8 g | 38.5 g | +85.1% |
| Kolesterol | 28 mg | — | — |
| Kül | 1.35 g | 1.5 g | +11.1% |
| Magnezyum | 14 mg | 28 mg | +100.0% |
| Niasin | 1.75 mg | 2.1 mg | +20.0% |
| Potasyum | 145 mg | 210 mg | +44.8% |
| Protein | 9.2 g | 6.5 g | -29.3% |
| Sodyum | 415 mg | 480 mg | +15.7% |
| Su | 59.2 g | 40.2 g | -32.1% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.85 g | 5.2 g | +82.5% |
| Toplam Folat | 24 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 3.75 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 8.4 g | 10.5 g | +25.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.15 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.2 g | 1.8 g | +50.0% |
| Çinko | 1.15 mg | 0.8 mg | -30.4% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Tangbao and Amritsari kulcha.
Tangbao has less energy per 100 g (195.6 kcal versus 275 kcal).
For measured Diyet lifi, Tangbao has 1 g and Amritsari kulcha has 2.8 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: Tangbao 20, Amritsari kulcha 14.
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.