Baking Powder vs Royal Baking Powder 450G
Overall, Royal Baking Powder 450G has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Baking Powder | Royal Baking Powder 450G |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 0 kcal | 0 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 20.8 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 0 g |
| Additives | 4 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Royal Baking Powder 450G has no salt, while Baking Powder has 20.8 g.
- Royal Baking Powder 450G has the better Nutri-Score.
- Baking Powder is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Baking Powder
CORN STARCH, SODIUM BICARBONATE, MONOCALCIUM PHOSPHATE
Royal Baking Powder 450G
Raising agents (disodium diphosphate, sodium hydrogen corn starch. May contain milk. Product without Gluten.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Baking Powder or Royal Baking Powder 450G?
Overall, Royal Baking Powder 450G 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?
Baking Powder has fewer calories: 0 kcal versus 0 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Baking Powder has less sugar: 0 g versus 0 g per 100 g.