Comparison

Chardons au 4 liqueurs vs Weinbrand Bohnen

Overall, Chardons au 4 liqueurs has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientChardons au 4 liqueursWeinbrand Bohnen
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 441 kcal 453 kcal
Fat 14 g 18.2 g
Saturated fat 8.5 g 11.5 g
Sugars 66 g 49.8 g
Salt 0.1 g 0 g
Fiber — 4.1 g
Protein 4.1 g 2.7 g
Additives71
AllergensMilkMilk

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

Key differences

  • Chardons au 4 liqueurs has 23% less fat (14 g vs 18.2 g).
  • Chardons au 4 liqueurs has 26% less saturated fat (8.5 g vs 11.5 g).
  • Weinbrand Bohnen has 25% less sugar (49.8 g vs 66 g).
  • Chardons au 4 liqueurs has 34% more protein (4.1 g vs 2.7 g).

Ingredients

Chardons au 4 liqueurs

sucre, beurre de cacao, pâte de cacao, eau, poudre de lait entier, poudre de lait écrémé, eau de vie de Kirsch 1,9% , eau de vie de framboise 1,8% , eau de vie de poire Williams 1,8%, rhum 1,6% (rhums, colorant: caramel ordinaire), émulsifiant : lécithine de tournesol, matière grasse de lait anhydre, cacao maigre en poudre, alcool, stabilisant : gomme arabique, colorants : carmin d'indigo, caroténoïdes, carmins, arômes.

Weinbrand Bohnen

Glukose-Fruktose-Sirup, Zucker, Kakaomasse, 16% Weinbrand, Kakaobutter', Laktose, Vollmilchpulver, Emulgator: Lecithine. Das Produkt kann Spuren von Gluten, Erdnüssen, Soja, Hühnerei und Schalenfrüchten enthalten.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Chardons au 4 liqueurs or Weinbrand Bohnen?

Overall, Chardons au 4 liqueurs 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?

Chardons au 4 liqueurs has fewer calories: 441 kcal versus 453 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Weinbrand Bohnen has less sugar: 49.8 g versus 66 g per 100 g.

More comparisons