2in1 Traubenzucker Himbeer-Apfel vs Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker
Overall, Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.
2in1 Traubenzucker Himbeer-Apfel
Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | 2in1 Traubenzucker Himbeer-A... | Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 2 | 4 |
| Calories | 366 kcal | 387 kcal |
| Fat | 0.6 g | 0.1 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 88 g | 71.6 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has 83% less fat (0.1 g vs 0.6 g).
- Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has 83% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 0.6 g).
- Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has 19% less sugar (71.6 g vs 88 g).
- 2in1 Traubenzucker Himbeer-Apfel is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
2in1 Traubenzucker Himbeer-Apfel
Not available.
Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker
Glukosesirup, Zucker, Traubenzucker 5%, Säuerungsmittel (Citronensäure, Milchsäure), Orangensaftkonzentrat, Zitronensaftkonzentrat, Vitaminmischung (Vitamin C, Niacin, Vitamin E, Pantothensäure, Riboflavin, Vitamin B6, Thiamin, Folsäure, Vitamin B12), färbender Rote Beetesaft, natürliches Zitronenaroma, natürliches Orangenaroma.
FAQ
Which is healthier: 2in1 Traubenzucker Himbeer-Apfel or Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker?
Overall, Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker 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?
2in1 Traubenzucker Himbeer-Apfel has fewer calories: 366 kcal versus 387 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has less sugar: 71.6 g versus 88 g per 100 g.