← Back to Wiki

FOOD ANALYSIS

Compare Foods

Compare foods side by side and see which option best matches your nutritional priorities.

Open in Fuel Lens ↗

The Compare page lets you add foods from the full BLS 4.0 catalog as well as foods in your currently selected date range. It combines a detailed nutrient table with nutrient-density scores, category rankings, and data-coverage information. BLS values are per 100 g, and the source and CC BY 4.0 license are linked above the comparison controls.

Getting started

  1. Open the Foods view and select the foods you want to compare.
  2. Choose Compare. The selected foods are carried to the comparison page.
  3. Use Add food to include another food from the BLS 4.0 catalog or active date range. Search by food name or group.
  4. Remove a food at any time with the trash button in its column header.

The page shows the number of selected foods and days at the top. If no food is selected, return to the Foods view and start the comparison there.

Comparison and scoring

Switch between per-100-g and per-100-kcal comparison bases. The table groups macro, lipid, carbohydrate, micronutrient, ratio, and score rows and shows medals for ranked rows when participating foods have sufficient coverage. Overall scores use the configured nutrient-density scoring model.

Additional comparisons include nutrient ratios, NRF-style nutrient-density scores, and protein-quality metrics where amino-acid coverage is sufficient. Descriptive ratios that are not rankable are shown for context but do not determine a medal.

Choose the comparison basis

Use Compare basis to decide how amounts are normalized:

  • Per 100 g compares equal masses. This is useful when portion weight or calorie intake is not the main constraint.
  • Per 100 kcal compares the nutrients delivered for the same amount of energy. This is useful when comparing calorie efficiency or nutrient density.

The selected basis applies to the nutrient values and to the row-level rankings. When using per 100 kcal, the Energy row becomes Weight: it shows how many grams of the food provide 100 kcal, so a higher value ranks better.

When should you use each basis?

Think of per 100 g as a mass-based question: “What does this food provide if I eat the same weight?” It is helpful for comparing similar ingredients, portion sizes, or foods with a similar water content.

Think of per 100 kcal as an energy-efficiency question: “What does this food provide for the same calorie budget?” It is helpful when calories are limited or when you want to find the most nutrient-dense option. A low-energy food can look much better per 100 kcal than per 100 g because you need more of it to reach 100 kcal.

Neither basis is universally better. Choose the one that matches the decision you are trying to make.

Read the comparison table

Each food has its own column. Nutrients are organized into the following sections when data is available:

  • Macros: energy, protein, net carbohydrates, and fat
  • General: for example alcohol, caffeine, ash, oxalate, and phytate
  • Vitamins
  • Minerals
  • Lipids: fats, omega-3, cholesterol, and related fatty acids
  • Carbohydrates: fiber, starch, sugars, and sugar alcohols
  • Protein: protein and individual amino acids

Additional nutrients that do not fit a standard section appear under Other. Missing data is shown as a dash, not as zero. A value in parentheses shows the percentage of the active goal when a matching goal exists. Macro rows do not display goal percentages.

Rankings and medals

For eligible nutrient rows, the best three foods receive gold, silver, and bronze markers. The direction depends on the nutrient:

  • Higher is better for most nutrients, such as protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals.
  • Lower is better for alcohol, caffeine, oxalate, phytate, sugars, added sugars, sugar alcohol, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, and phytosterol.
  • Energy is lower-is-better per 100 g. Per 100 kcal, the Weight row is higher-is-better.

The nutrients won label counts how many eligible rows a food wins. This is a simple count and does not replace the weighted scores.

Seeing the best nutrients for each food

The table makes each food’s strengths visible in its own column. A medal on a nutrient row means that food is one of the top three for that nutrient. A 1 is first place, 2 is second place, and 3 is third place. The nutrients won count in the section header tells you how many eligible nutrients that food wins outright in that category.

This lets you answer questions such as “Which food has the most fiber?”, “Which option is lowest in saturated fat?”, or “Which food is strongest across the vitamins section?” Expand the relevant category and read the highlighted rows. A food does not need to be the overall winner to be the best choice for a specific nutrient.

Category medals summarize the ranking within Vitamins, Minerals, Lipids, Carbohydrates, Protein, and General. A nutrient must have data for at least 80% of the selected foods to contribute to a category ranking. All placements contribute points: with N foods, first place receives N points, second place N - 1, and so on.

Scores

The score rows at the top of the table show the active nutrient-density model. Depending on your settings, the page can also show additional model scores for comparison. Hover over a score to see its contributing factors and details.

Supported model families include:

  • Custom Exponential Model: a practical 1–100 score with soft caps, a diversity bonus, and renormalization when some nutrient fields are missing.
  • NRF models: academic Nutrient Rich Foods Index variants. They reward nutrients to encourage and subtract points for nutrients to limit. Variants use different positive and limited nutrient sets.

Each score includes data coverage. Coverage is the percentage of nutrients required by that model that are present in the food data. A high score with low coverage should be treated cautiously. A known value of zero counts as available data; a missing or untracked field does not.

The overall ranking uses weighted category results: Vitamins 32.5%, Minerals 32.5%, Lipids 20%, Carbohydrates 10%, and Protein 5%. Macros and General are excluded from this overall category score. The overall medals show only the top three foods, while all eligible placements contribute to the result. Fiber, sugars, unsaturated fats, omega-3, DHA, EPA, and the listed essential amino acids have extra weight in category and overall scores.

What the Overall Winner means

The Overall row identifies the best-balanced food according to the active nutrient-density model. The gold 1 is the Overall Winner, followed by silver 2 and bronze 3. The label underneath shows how many eligible nutrients each food won.

The Overall Winner is not simply the food with the most rows in first place. The result also considers the score model, category weights, nutrient weights, and available data. For example, a food can win many individual nutrients but still rank below another food if its wins are concentrated in a less-weighted category or if its score has lower data coverage. Use the Overall Winner for a broad comparison, then use the category medals and nutrient rows to understand why it won.

The comparison basis changes the displayed nutrient amounts and row-level medals. The nutrient-density score itself is calculated by the selected scoring model using its defined density normalization, so score comparisons should always be read together with the model name and data coverage.

For formulas and a detailed explanation of the model variants, see Nutrient Scoring Models.

Tips for meaningful comparisons

  • Compare foods from the same type of use case, such as breakfast options or protein sources.
  • Check both the score and its data coverage.
  • Switch between per 100 g and per 100 kcal; the winner can change because the question changes.
  • Use the nutrient rows and your own goals to validate a score instead of relying on one number alone.

Scientific background and limits

The NRF variants are research-derived nutrient-density models; their nutrient sets and scoring rules differ, so scores should only be compared when the same variant and reference basis are used. Protein-quality values calculated from an amino-acid profile are also composition-based estimates. They do not measure digestion, absorption, or the quality of a person's overall diet. The FAO review describes protein-quality assessment methods that include digestibility, which is not established by an amino-acid listing alone.

Related guides

Continue with these connected Fuel Lens guides.