Comparison

300G Cocobat Haribo vs Lakritz Schnecken

Overall, Lakritz Schnecken has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

Nutrient300G Cocobat HariboLakritz Schnecken
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 364 kcal 327 kcal
Fat 3.9 g 0.5 g
Saturated fat 1.9 g 0.1 g
Sugars 52 g 42 g
Salt 1 g 1.2 g
Protein 2.3 g 3.3 g
Additives52
AllergensGelatin, Gluten, MilkGluten, Weizenmehl

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Lakritz Schnecken has 10% fewer calories (327 kcal vs 364 kcal).
  • Lakritz Schnecken has 87% less fat (0.5 g vs 3.9 g).
  • Lakritz Schnecken has 95% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 1.9 g).
  • Lakritz Schnecken has 19% less sugar (42 g vs 52 g).
  • Lakritz Schnecken has 30% more protein (3.3 g vs 2.3 g).
  • Only 300G Cocobat Haribo lists: Gelatin, Milk.
  • Only Lakritz Schnecken lists: Weizenmehl.

Ingredients

300G Cocobat Haribo

sugar, molasses sugar syrup, glucose syrup, wheat flour, starch, palm fat, dextrose, licorice extract, maltodextrin, lactose, milk protein, salt, gelatin, acidifier: citric acid, fruit and plant concentrates: safflower, spirulina, invert sugar syrup, flavouring, colouring: carmine, glazing agents: white and yellow beeswax, carnauba wax

Lakritz Schnecken

Zuckersirup; Weizenmehl; Glukosesirup; Stärke; Süßholzextrakt (3 %); Kochsalz; Aroma; Säuerungsmittel: Citronensäure; Überzugsmittel: Bienenwachs; Sonnenblumenöl

FAQ

Which is healthier: 300G Cocobat Haribo or Lakritz Schnecken?

Overall, Lakritz Schnecken 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?

Lakritz Schnecken has fewer calories: 327 kcal versus 364 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Lakritz Schnecken has less sugar: 42 g versus 52 g per 100 g.

More comparisons