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
371 kcal
Score
41 / 100
Yulaf Kepeği has a higher nutrition quality score (51) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
246 vs 371(+50.8%)
Score Diff
51 vs 41(-19.6%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yulaf Kepeği
Higher energy
Amarant Tohumu
Score leader
Yulaf Kepeği
Nutrient split
11 - 7 (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.
Yulaf Kepeği and Amarant Tohumu 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 Amarant Tohumu has 371.0 kcal. The difference is 125.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 51 and 41. 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 | Amarant Tohumu | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 1.17 mg | 0.12 mg | -89.7% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.22 mg | 0.2 mg | -9.1% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.17 mg | 0.59 mg | +247.1% |
| Bakir | 0.4 mg | 0.53 mg | +32.5% |
| Beta-glukan | 7 g | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | — | 4.2 mg | — |
| Demir | 5.41 mg | 7.61 mg | +40.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 15.4 g | 6.7 g | -56.5% |
| E Vitamini (alfa-tokoferol) | — | 1.19 mg | — |
| Folat DFE | — | 82 µg | — |
| Fosfor | 734 mg | 557 mg | -24.1% |
| Kalsiyum | 58 mg | 159 mg | +174.1% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 66.22 g | 65.25 g | -1.5% |
| Kül | 2.8 g | 2.88 g | +2.9% |
| Lizin | — | 0.75 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 235 mg | 248 mg | +5.5% |
| Mangan | 5.63 mg | 3.33 mg | -40.9% |
| Niasin | 0.93 mg | 0.92 mg | -1.1% |
| Pantotenik asit | — | 1.46 mg | — |
| Potasyum | 566 mg | 508 mg | -10.2% |
| Protein | 17.3 g | 13.56 g | -21.6% |
| Selenyum | — | 18.7 µg | — |
| Sodyum | 4 mg | 4 mg | 0.0% |
| Su | 8.7 g | 11.29 g | +29.8% |
| Toplam doymus yağ asitleri | — | 1.46 g | — |
| Toplam Folat | 52 µg | — | — |
| Toplam tekli doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 1.69 g | — |
| Toplam yağ | 7.03 g | 7.02 g | -0.1% |
| Toplam çoklu doymamis yağ asitleri | — | 2.78 g | — |
| Toplam Şeker | — | 1.69 g | — |
| Çinko | 3.11 mg | 2.87 mg | -7.7% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Yulaf Kepeği and Amarant Tohumu.
Yulaf Kepeği has less energy per 100 g (246 kcal versus 371 kcal).
For measured B6 Vitamini, Yulaf Kepeği has 0.17 mg and Amarant Tohumu has 0.59 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: Yulaf Kepeği 51, Amarant Tohumu 41.
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.