Comparison
Azucarera vs Tila alpina
Overall, Tila alpina has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Azucarera | Tila alpina |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | — |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 380 kcal | 1 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 95 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.2 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Tila alpina has 100% fewer calories (1 kcal vs 380 kcal).
- Tila alpina has 100% less sugar (0 g vs 95 g).
Ingredients
Azucarera
Not available.
Tila alpina
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Azucarera or Tila alpina?
Overall, Tila alpina 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?
Tila alpina has fewer calories: 1 kcal versus 380 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Tila alpina has less sugar: 0 g versus 95 g per 100 g.