Comparison
Balsamica polar relief pastilles vs Classic
Overall, Classic has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Balsamica polar relief pasti... | Classic |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 390 kcal | 384 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 97 g | 68 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 0 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Classic has 30% less sugar (68 g vs 97 g).
Ingredients
Balsamica polar relief pastilles
Sugar. Thickening agents: Arabic gum, tragacanth, Romectant glycerin. Liquorice eucalyptus, menthol, Tolu balm, flavours.
Classic
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Balsamica polar relief pastilles or Classic?
Overall, Classic 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?
Classic has fewer calories: 384 kcal versus 390 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Classic has less sugar: 68 g versus 97 g per 100 g.
More comparisons
Honing citroensmaak past... vs Balsamica polar relief p...
Balsamica polar relief p... vs Menthol keelpastilles
Eucalyptus vs Balsamica polar relief p...
Pastilles honing vs Balsamica polar relief p...
Pastilles honing vs Classic
Honing citroensmaak past... vs Classic
Menthol keelpastilles vs Classic
Balsamica polar relief p... vs Menthol eucalyptus