Comparison

Antonia cocoa vs Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne

Overall, Antonia cocoa has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientAntonia cocoaViva Crunchy Chips Chilli Co...
Nutri-Score d e
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 348 kcal 553 kcal
Fat 21.6 g 33 g
Saturated fat 11.3 g 3 g
Sugars 3.2 g 2 g
Salt 0 g 2.8 g
Fiber 0 g 2 g
Protein 6.1 g 5 g
Additives20
AllergensSesame seedsNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Antonia cocoa has 37% fewer calories (348 kcal vs 553 kcal).
  • Antonia cocoa has 35% less fat (21.6 g vs 33 g).
  • Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne has 73% less saturated fat (3 g vs 11.3 g).
  • Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne has 38% less sugar (2 g vs 3.2 g).
  • Antonia cocoa has no salt, while Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne has 2.8 g.
  • Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne has 100% more fiber (2 g vs 0 g).
  • Antonia cocoa has 18% more protein (6.1 g vs 5 g).
  • Antonia cocoa has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Antonia cocoa lists: Sesame seeds.

Ingredients

Antonia cocoa

Făină albă de grâu 650, zahar, grásime de palmier, apă, 6.8% pudra de cacao cu conţinut redus de grăsime*, agenţi de afânare: carbonat acid de amoniu, carbonat de sodiu sare iodată, arome. Poate conține urme de produse derivate din lapte, seminte de susan, soia.

Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Antonia cocoa or Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne?

Overall, Antonia cocoa 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?

Antonia cocoa has fewer calories: 348 kcal versus 553 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Viva Crunchy Chips Chilli Con Carne has less sugar: 2 g versus 3.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons