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
151.5 kcal
Score
43 / 100
Ali Nazik Kebabı has a higher nutrition quality score (43) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
342 vs 151.5(-55.7%)
Score Diff
19 vs 43(+126.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Ali Nazik Kebabı
Higher energy
Tarhana (Maraş Sıkma)
Score leader
Ali Nazik Kebabı
Nutrient split
12 - 3 (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.
Tarhana (Maraş Sıkma) and Ali Nazik Kebabı are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Tarhana (Maraş Sıkma) has 342.0 kcal and Ali Nazik Kebabı has 151.5 kcal. The difference is 190.5 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 19 and 43. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
15 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Tarhana (Maraş Sıkma) | Ali Nazik Kebabı | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 26 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.28 mg | — | — |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 0.75 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.24 mg | 0.14 mg | -41.7% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.21 mg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 4.2 mg | — |
| Demir | 3.4 mg | 1.15 mg | -66.2% |
| Diyet lifi | 6.2 g | 1.7 g | -72.6% |
| Fosfor | 315 mg | 112 mg | -64.4% |
| Kalsiyum | 210 mg | 68 mg | -67.6% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 63.4 g | 5.7 g | -91.0% |
| Kolesterol | — | 28 mg | — |
| Kül | 4.2 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 78 mg | 19 mg | -75.6% |
| Niasin | 3.1 mg | 2.2 mg | -29.0% |
| Potasyum | 380 mg | 275 mg | -27.6% |
| Protein | 13.6 g | 8.4 g | -38.2% |
| Sodyum | 1150 mg | 345 mg | -70.0% |
| Su | 12.8 g | 74.2 g | +479.7% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 2.15 g | 4.1 g | +90.7% |
| Toplam Folat | 38 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.92 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 3.8 g | 10.2 g | +168.4% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.55 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 2.5 g | — |
| Çinko | 2.1 mg | 1.35 mg | -35.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Tarhana (Maraş Sıkma) and Ali Nazik Kebabı.
Ali Nazik Kebabı has less energy per 100 g (151.5 kcal versus 342 kcal).
For measured Su, Tarhana (Maraş Sıkma) has 12.8 g and Ali Nazik Kebabı has 74.2 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: Tarhana (Maraş Sıkma) 19, Ali Nazik Kebabı 43.
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.