They are 10 times off based on several samples from this study. Turmeric only has 10 to 15 thousand ORAC, not 127 thousand. This error is likely either a typo or they are citing the value of curcumin rather than turmeric.

See here for google sheet version of study cited above.

EDIT: I checked their source. They appear to have represented the source accurately. Why, then, the ten fold difference?

I found a study on acai and blood sugar, but they used healthy overweight subjects. The relative reduction in postprandial glucose was substantial. However, since the subjects' baseline fasting glucose was normal, the drop was not significant. We have every reason to think that fasting blood sugar would be reduced in diabetic subjects.

I was unable to find a study on baobab on diabetes or metabolic syndrome. However, given the effectiveness of amla, curcumin, and acai, it is likely effective. There is also some evidence for many other antioxidant sources, which backs up the idea that any source will do.

I've found one study on sumac for type 2 diabetes. There seems to be two separate write-ups on the same data.

Oddly, 3 grams sumac did not perform as well as 3 grams amla. I can think of several possible explanations. The most likely explanation is that they used the whole grain rather than the bran. I assume the grain is what's used traditionally, but I'm having difficulty finding information about this. The bran has over 3 times the ORAC compared to the whole grain. It's likely that the bran is both hard to find and expensive.