Comparison
1664 vs 1664
Overall, 1664 has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | 1664 | 1664 |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 45 kcal | 45 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Gluten, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites | Gluten, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites, Anhydride sulfureux et sulfites, Alcool |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- 1664 is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only 1664 lists: Anhydride sulfureux et sulfites, Alcool.
Ingredients
1664
Eau, MALT D'ORGE, BLE, sirop de glucose, extrait de houblon, SULFITES
1664
chocolate
FAQ
Which is healthier: 1664 or 1664?
Overall, 1664 has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. We compare Nutri-Score, processing level and seven nutrients per 100 g. Your own needs (for example low sugar or high protein) may make a different choice better for you.
Which has fewer calories?
1664 has fewer calories: 45 kcal versus 45 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
1664 has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 0.1 g per 100 g.