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
Yaprak kereviz has a higher nutrition quality score (89) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
16 vs 15(-6.3%)
Score Diff
89 vs 85(-4.5%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yaprak kereviz
Higher energy
Yaprak kereviz
Score leader
Yaprak kereviz
Nutrient split
15 - 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.
Yaprak kereviz and Acur are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Yaprak kereviz has 16.0 kcal and Acur has 15.0 kcal. The difference is 1.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 89 and 85. 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 | Yaprak kereviz | Acur | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 150 µg | — | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.05 mg | 0.027 mg | -46.0% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.06 mg | 0.033 mg | -45.0% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.08 mg | 0.04 mg | -50.0% |
| Bakir | — | 0.041 mg | — |
| Beta Karoten | — | 45 µg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 15 mg | 2.8 mg | -81.3% |
| Demir | 0.8 mg | 0.28 mg | -65.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.6 g | 0.5 g | -68.8% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | 16 kcal | — | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 7 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 30 mg | 24 mg | -20.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 100 µg | 16.4 µg | -83.6% |
| Kalsiyum | 80 mg | 16 mg | -80.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 3 g | 3.63 g | +21.0% |
| Kül | 1.4 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 25 mg | 13 mg | -48.0% |
| Mangan | — | 0.079 mg | — |
| Niasin | 0.4 mg | 0.098 mg | -75.5% |
| Potasyum | 300 mg | 147 mg | -51.0% |
| Protein | 1.5 g | 0.65 g | -56.7% |
| Sodyum | 100 mg | 2 mg | -98.0% |
| Su | 90 g | 95.23 g | +5.8% |
| Toplam Folat | 35 µg | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.15 g | 0.11 g | -26.7% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 1.67 g | — |
| Çinko | 0.13 mg | 0.2 mg | +53.8% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Yaprak kereviz and Acur.
Acur has less energy per 100 g (15 kcal versus 16 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Yaprak kereviz has 100 mg and Acur has 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: Yaprak kereviz 89, 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.
Analytical Methodology
The scoring algorithm is a scale of 100 based on nutrient density and macro/micro component balance.