Amita motion vs ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos
Overall, ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 ml
| Nutrient | Amita motion | ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añ... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | c |
| NOVA group | 1 | 4 |
| Calories | 46 kcal | 32 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Saturated fat | — | 0 g |
| Sugars | 10.4 g | 4.9 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0.6 g | 0.4 g |
| Protein | 0.4 g | 0.2 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | Apple, Kiwi, Orange, Peach | Apple |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos has 30% fewer calories (32 kcal vs 46 kcal).
- ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos has 53% less sugar (4.9 g vs 10.4 g).
- ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos has the better Nutri-Score.
- Amita motion is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Amita motion lists: Kiwi, Orange, Peach.
Ingredients
Amita motion
Juices from concentrates (apple, peach, orange, grape, pineapple and grapefruit), purees (kiwi, passion fruit and mango), vitamins (C, B6, B12, biotin, E, niacin and folic acid).
ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos
55% of juices and fruit purees, in variable proportion, partially from concentrate (apple, grape, raspberry, pomegranate, cherry, currant and mulberry), water, sweeteners (sucralose and acesulfame k) and vitamin c,
FAQ
Which is healthier: Amita motion or ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos?
Overall, ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos 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?
ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos has fewer calories: 32 kcal versus 46 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
ANTIOXIDANTE Sin Azúcares Añadidos has less sugar: 4.9 g versus 10.4 g per 100 g.