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
79.2 kcal
Score
62 / 100
Agwijjim has a higher nutrition quality score (62) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
88 vs 79.2(-10.0%)
Score Diff
29 vs 62(+113.8%)
OVERALL WINNER
Agwijjim
Higher energy
Tteokguk
Score leader
Agwijjim
Nutrient split
3 - 20 (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.
Tteokguk and Agwijjim are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Tteokguk has 88.0 kcal and Agwijjim has 79.2 kcal. The difference is 8.8 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 29 and 62. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
23 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Tteokguk | Agwijjim | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 18 µg | 42 µg | +133.3% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.04 mg | 0.08 mg | +100.0% |
| B12 Vitamini | 0.26 µg | 1.15 µg | +342.3% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.06 mg | 0.11 mg | +83.3% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.07 mg | 0.22 mg | +214.3% |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 0.8 mg | 8.2 mg | +925.0% |
| Demir | 0.72 mg | 0.9 mg | +25.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 0.6 g | 1.5 g | +150.0% |
| Fosfor | 38 mg | 135 mg | +255.3% |
| Kalsiyum | 12 mg | 34 mg | +183.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 15.2 g | 5.4 g | -64.5% |
| Kolesterol | 14.5 mg | 38 mg | +162.1% |
| Kül | — | 1.7 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 9.5 mg | 28 mg | +194.7% |
| Niasin | 0.95 mg | 2.4 mg | +152.6% |
| Potasyum | 88 mg | 340 mg | +286.4% |
| Protein | 3.8 g | 10.8 g | +184.2% |
| Selenyum | — | 18.5 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 365 mg | 520 mg | +42.5% |
| Su | 78.4 g | 81.5 g | +4.0% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.52 g | 0.32 g | -38.5% |
| Toplam Folat | 12.4 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.58 g | 0.45 g | -22.4% |
| Toplam yağ | 1.5 g | 1.6 g | +6.7% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 0.22 g | 0.58 g | +163.6% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 1.8 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.68 mg | 0.75 mg | +10.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Tteokguk and Agwijjim.
Agwijjim has less energy per 100 g (79.2 kcal versus 88 kcal).
For measured C Vitamini (askorbik asit), Tteokguk has 0.8 mg and Agwijjim has 8.2 mg 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: Tteokguk 29, Agwijjim 62.
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.