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
Acur has a higher nutrition quality score (85) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
112 vs 15(-86.6%)
Score Diff
28 vs 85(+203.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Acur
Higher energy
Taro Kökü
Score leader
Acur
Nutrient split
17 - 4 (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.
Taro Kökü and Acur are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Taro Kökü has 112.0 kcal and Acur has 15.0 kcal. The difference is 97.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 28 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 | Taro Kökü | Acur | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.095 mg | 0.027 mg | -71.6% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.025 mg | 0.033 mg | +32.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.283 mg | 0.04 mg | -85.9% |
| Bakir | 0.172 mg | 0.041 mg | -76.2% |
| Beta Karoten | — | 45 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 4.5 mg | 2.8 mg | -37.8% |
| Demir | 0.55 mg | 0.28 mg | -49.1% |
| Diyet lifi | 4.1 g | 0.5 g | -87.8% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 2.38 mg | — | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 7 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 84 mg | 24 mg | -71.4% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 1 µg | 16.4 µg | +1540.0% |
| Kalsiyum | 43 mg | 16 mg | -62.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 26.46 g | 3.63 g | -86.3% |
| Kül | 1.2 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 33 mg | 13 mg | -60.6% |
| Mangan | 0.383 mg | 0.079 mg | -79.4% |
| Niasin | 0.6 mg | 0.098 mg | -83.7% |
| Pantotenik asit | 0.303 mg | — | — |
| Potasyum | 591 mg | 147 mg | -75.1% |
| Protein | 1.5 g | 0.65 g | -56.7% |
| Selenyum | 0.7 µg | — | — |
| Sodyum | 11 mg | 2 mg | -81.8% |
| Su | 70.64 g | 95.23 g | +34.8% |
| Toplam Folat | 22 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.2 g | 0.11 g | -45.0% |
| Toplam Şeker | 0.4 g | 1.67 g | +317.5% |
| Çinko | 0.23 mg | 0.2 mg | -13.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Taro Kökü and Acur.
Acur has less energy per 100 g (15 kcal versus 112 kcal).
For measured K Vitamini (filokinon), Taro Kökü has 1 µg and Acur has 16.4 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: Taro Kökü 28, 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.
Taro Kökü · Acur · Methodology
Analytical Methodology
The scoring algorithm is a scale of 100 based on nutrient density and macro/micro component balance.