Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 vs Marrakesh Style Tea
Overall, Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 1.
Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40
Marrakesh Style Tea
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Café dosettes Corsé - Compat... | Marrakesh Style Tea |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | e |
| NOVA group | 1 | — |
| Calories | 0 kcal | 392 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 94.4 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 19.8 g | 0.2 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.4 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
- Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has no calories, while Marrakesh Style Tea has 392 kcal.
- Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has no fat, while Marrakesh Style Tea has 0.4 g.
- Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has no sugar, while Marrakesh Style Tea has 94.4 g.
- Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has 99% more fiber (19.8 g vs 0.2 g).
- Marrakesh Style Tea has 100% more protein (0.4 g vs 0 g).
- Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40
100 % café.
Marrakesh Style Tea
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 or Marrakesh Style Tea?
Overall, Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 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?
Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has fewer calories: 0 kcal versus 392 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Café dosettes Corsé - Compatible SENSEO - x40 has less sugar: 0 g versus 94.4 g per 100 g.