Comparison

70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres vs Massa di cacao 100%

Overall, 70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

Nutrient70% Noir Faible teneur en su...Massa di cacao 100%
Nutri-Score d d
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 529 kcal 610 kcal
Fat 42 g 45.6 g
Saturated fat 27 g 28.8 g
Sugars 1.2 g 2.1 g
Salt 0 g 0 g
Fiber 11 g 0 g
Protein 8.2 g 14 g
Additives30
AllergensMilkNone listed

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

Key differences

  • 70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres has 13% fewer calories (529 kcal vs 610 kcal).
  • 70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres has 43% less sugar (1.2 g vs 2.1 g).
  • 70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres has 100% more fiber (11 g vs 0 g).
  • Massa di cacao 100% has 41% more protein (14 g vs 8.2 g).
  • Massa di cacao 100% is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only 70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres lists: Milk.

Ingredients

70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres

Pâte de cacao1 (origine Afrique), édulcorants: maltitol, lactitol (LAIT), beurre de cacao1, poudre de cacao degraissée1, émulsifiant: lécithines, arôme naturel de vanille. Traces éventuelles de céréales contenant du gluten, de soja, d'oeufs et de fruits à coque. Une consommation excessive peut avoir des effets laxatifs. Cacao : 70% minimum. 1Certifié Rainforest Alliance. ra.org

Massa di cacao 100%

Masse de cacao

FAQ

Which is healthier: 70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres or Massa di cacao 100%?

Overall, 70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres 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?

70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres has fewer calories: 529 kcal versus 610 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

70% Noir Faible teneur en sucres has less sugar: 1.2 g versus 2.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons