Comparison
1664 vs Pure Malt Lager
Overall, 1664 has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | 1664 | Pure Malt Lager |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 45 kcal | 21 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0.1 g | 1.3 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Gluten, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites | Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pure Malt Lager has 53% fewer calories (21 kcal vs 45 kcal).
- 1664 has 92% less sugar (0.1 g vs 1.3 g).
- 1664 has 100% more protein (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Only 1664 lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.
Ingredients
1664
Eau, MALT D'ORGE, BLE, sirop de glucose, extrait de houblon, SULFITES
Pure Malt Lager
agua, malta de cebada, aroma natural, extracto de lúpulo
FAQ
Which is healthier: 1664 or Pure Malt Lager?
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?
Pure Malt Lager has fewer calories: 21 kcal versus 45 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
1664 has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 1.3 g per 100 g.