Comparison

Boerencake vs Mix voor Chocolate Chip Cookies

Overall, Boerencake has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 4.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientBoerencakeMix voor Chocolate Chip Cook...
Nutri-Score e a
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 423 kcal 512 kcal
Fat 24.3 g 30 g
Saturated fat 10.7 g 20 g
Sugars 26.3 g 35 g
Salt 0.9 g 0.4 g
Fiber 0 g 1.6 g
Protein 5.7 g 4.8 g
Additives44
AllergensGlutenGluten, Soybeans

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

Key differences

  • Boerencake has 17% fewer calories (423 kcal vs 512 kcal).
  • Boerencake has 19% less fat (24.3 g vs 30 g).
  • Boerencake has 47% less saturated fat (10.7 g vs 20 g).
  • Boerencake has 25% less sugar (26.3 g vs 35 g).
  • Mix voor Chocolate Chip Cookies has 56% less salt (0.4 g vs 0.9 g).
  • Mix voor Chocolate Chip Cookies has 100% more fiber (1.6 g vs 0 g).
  • Boerencake has 15% more protein (5.7 g vs 4.8 g).
  • Mix voor Chocolate Chip Cookies has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Mix voor Chocolate Chip Cookies lists: Soybeans.

Ingredients

Boerencake

Suiker, TARWEBLOEM, maïsmeel, maiszetmeel, rijstzetmeel, rijsmiddelen (E450, E500), emulgatoren (E471, E475), ROGGEMEEL, zout, aroma's, natuurlijk citroenaroma.

Mix voor Chocolate Chip Cookies

Tarwebloem, suiker, cacaomassa, gedroogde glucosestroop, rijsmiddel (E450, E500), zout, cacaopoeder, cacaoboter, natuurlijk vanillearoma, emulgator (sojalecithinen [E322]), aroma, antiklontermiddel (E535).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Boerencake or Mix voor Chocolate Chip Cookies?

Overall, Boerencake 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?

Boerencake has fewer calories: 423 kcal versus 512 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Boerencake has less sugar: 26.3 g versus 35 g per 100 g.

More comparisons