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
275 kcal
Score
14 / 100
Yong tau foo has a higher nutrition quality score (34) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
90 vs 275(+205.6%)
Score Diff
34 vs 14(-58.8%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yong tau foo
Higher energy
Amritsari kulcha
Score leader
Yong tau foo
Nutrient split
4 - 15 (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.
Yong tau foo and Amritsari kulcha are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Yong tau foo has 90.0 kcal and Amritsari kulcha has 275.0 kcal. The difference is 185.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 34 and 14. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
20 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Yong tau foo | Amritsari kulcha | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | 24 µg | 35 µg | +45.8% |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.06 mg | 0.22 mg | +266.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.08 mg | 0.15 mg | +87.5% |
| B6 Vitamini | — | 0.18 mg | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 7.2 mg | 6.5 mg | -9.7% |
| Demir | 1.2 mg | 2.1 mg | +75.0% |
| Diyet lifi | 1.4 g | 2.8 g | +100.0% |
| Folat DFE | — | 45 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 85 mg | 110 mg | +29.4% |
| Kalsiyum | 68 mg | 45 mg | -33.8% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 4.8 g | 38.5 g | +702.1% |
| Kolesterol | 18 mg | — | — |
| Kül | 1.2 g | 1.5 g | +25.0% |
| Magnezyum | 22 mg | 28 mg | +27.3% |
| Niasin | 1.45 mg | 2.1 mg | +44.8% |
| Potasyum | 210 mg | 210 mg | 0.0% |
| Protein | 8.2 g | 6.5 g | -20.7% |
| Sodyum | 420 mg | 480 mg | +14.3% |
| Su | 80.2 g | 40.2 g | -49.9% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | 0.8 g | 5.2 g | +550.0% |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.5 g | — | — |
| Toplam yağ | 4.2 g | 10.5 g | +150.0% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | 1.4 g | — | — |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.1 g | 1.8 g | +63.6% |
| Çinko | 0.75 mg | 0.8 mg | +6.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Yong tau foo and Amritsari kulcha.
Yong tau foo has less energy per 100 g (90 kcal versus 275 kcal).
For measured Karbonhidrat (farkla), Yong tau foo has 4.8 g and Amritsari kulcha has 38.5 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: Yong tau foo 34, Amritsari kulcha 14.
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.