Comparison
Bcaa vs Bcaa 2:1:1
Overall, Bcaa 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 | Bcaa | Bcaa 2:1:1 |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 28 kcal | 402 kcal |
| Fat | 0.5 g | 7 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 4.1 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0.3 g |
| Salt | — | 2.2 g |
| Protein | 5.1 g | 77.8 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
- Bcaa has 93% fewer calories (28 kcal vs 402 kcal).
- Bcaa has 93% less fat (0.5 g vs 7 g).
- Bcaa has 98% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 4.1 g).
- Bcaa 2:1:1 has 93% more protein (77.8 g vs 5.1 g).
Ingredients
Bcaa
Not available.
Bcaa 2:1:1
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bcaa or Bcaa 2:1:1?
Overall, Bcaa 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?
Bcaa has fewer calories: 28 kcal versus 402 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bcaa 2:1:1 has less sugar: 0.3 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.