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
368 kcal
Score
32 / 100
Yulaf Kepeği has a higher nutrition quality score (51) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
246 vs 368(+49.6%)
Score Diff
51 vs 32(-37.3%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yulaf Kepeği
Higher energy
Altın kinoa
Score leader
Yulaf Kepeği
Nutrient split
12 - 7 (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.
Yulaf Kepeği and Altın kinoa are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Yulaf Kepeği has 246.0 kcal and Altın kinoa has 368.0 kcal. The difference is 122.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 51 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 | Yulaf Kepeği | Altın kinoa | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 1.17 mg | 0.36 mg | -69.2% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.22 mg | 0.32 mg | +45.5% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.17 mg | 0.49 mg | +188.2% |
| Bakir | 0.4 mg | 0.59 mg | +47.5% |
| Beta-glukan | 7 g | — | — |
| Demir | 5.41 mg | 4.57 mg | -15.5% |
| Diyet lifi | 15.4 g | 7 g | -54.5% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 2.44 mg | — |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 368 kcal | — |
| Fosfor | 734 mg | 457 mg | -37.7% |
| Kalsiyum | 58 mg | 47 mg | -19.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 66.22 g | 64.16 g | -3.1% |
| Kül | 2.8 g | — | — |
| Magnezyum | 235 mg | 197 mg | -16.2% |
| Mangan | 5.63 mg | 2 mg | -64.5% |
| Niasin | 0.93 mg | 1.52 mg | +63.4% |
| Potasyum | 566 mg | 563 mg | -0.5% |
| Protein | 17.3 g | 14.12 g | -18.4% |
| Selenyum | — | 8.5 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 4 mg | 5 mg | +25.0% |
| Su | 8.7 g | 13.28 g | +52.6% |
| Toplam Folat | 52 µg | 184 µg | +253.8% |
| Toplam yağ | 7.03 g | 6.07 g | -13.7% |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 0.1 g | — |
| Çinko | 3.11 mg | 3.1 mg | -0.3% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Yulaf Kepeği and Altın kinoa.
Yulaf Kepeği has less energy per 100 g (246 kcal versus 368 kcal).
For measured Toplam Folat, Yulaf Kepeği has 52 µg and Altın kinoa has 184 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: Yulaf Kepeği 51, Altın kinoa 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.