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
292 kcal
Score
32 / 100
Antep peyniri has a higher nutrition quality score (32) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
720 vs 292(-59.4%)
Score Diff
2 vs 32(+1500.0%)
OVERALL WINNER
Antep peyniri
Higher energy
Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı
Score leader
Antep peyniri
Nutrient split
7 - 11 (tie: 1)
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.
Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı and Antep peyniri are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı has 720.0 kcal and Antep peyniri has 292.0 kcal. The difference is 428.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 2 and 32. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
19 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı | Antep peyniri | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 684 µg | 195 µg | -71.5% |
| B12 Vitamini | — | 1.45 µg | — |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | — | 0.36 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | 158 µg | — | — |
| D Vitamini | 1.5 µg | — | — |
| Demir | — | 0.42 mg | — |
| Diyet lifi | 0 g | 0 g | — |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | 2.32 mg | — | — |
| Enerji | — | 1221 kj | — |
| Fosfor | 24 mg | 450 mg | +1775.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 7 µg | — | — |
| Kalsiyum | 24 mg | 680 mg | +2733.3% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 0.3 g | 1.8 g | +500.0% |
| Kolesterol | 215 mg | 72 mg | -66.5% |
| Kül | 0.15 g | 6.7 g | +4366.7% |
| Laktoz | 0.25 g | 1.2 g | +380.0% |
| Magnezyum | — | 25 mg | — |
| MUFA 18:1 (oleik asit) | 19.8 g | — | — |
| Potasyum | 24 mg | 115 mg | +379.2% |
| Protein | 0.85 g | 21.5 g | +2429.4% |
| Retinol | 671 µg | 190 µg | -71.7% |
| SFA 16:0 (palmitik asit) | 21.5 g | — | — |
| SFA 4:0 (butirik asit) | 3.25 g | — | — |
| Sodyum | 11 mg | 1250 mg | +11263.6% |
| Su | 17.2 g | 48 g | +179.1% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 51.3 g | 13.8 g | -73.1% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 21 g | 5.8 g | -72.4% |
| Toplam yağ | 81.5 g | 22 g | -73.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 3.05 g | 0.85 g | -72.1% |
| Toplam Şeker | 0.25 g | 1.2 g | +380.0% |
| Çinko | 0.09 mg | 3.2 mg | +3455.6% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı and Antep peyniri.
Antep peyniri has less energy per 100 g (292 kcal versus 720 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı has 11 mg and Antep peyniri has 1250 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: Tuzsuz Yayık Tereyağı 2, Antep peyniri 32.
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.