Comparison

Cheese & Bacon Potato Skins vs Cartofiori de covasna

Overall, Cartofiori de covasna has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientCheese & Bacon Potato SkinsCartofiori de covasna
Nutri-Score c a
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 174 kcal 89 kcal
Fat 7.9 g 1.3 g
Saturated fat 2.6 g 0.1 g
Sugars 2.2 g 0.5 g
Salt 0.3 g 0.2 g
Fiber 2.5 g 2.6 g
Protein 6.3 g 3.2 g
Additives10
AllergensMilk, Mustard, PorkNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Cartofiori de covasna has 49% fewer calories (89 kcal vs 174 kcal).
  • Cartofiori de covasna has 83% less fat (1.3 g vs 7.9 g).
  • Cartofiori de covasna has 95% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 2.6 g).
  • Cartofiori de covasna has 79% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2.2 g).
  • Cheese & Bacon Potato Skins has 49% more protein (6.3 g vs 3.2 g).
  • Cartofiori de covasna has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Cartofiori de covasna is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Cheese & Bacon Potato Skins lists: Milk, Mustard, Pork.

Ingredients

Cheese & Bacon Potato Skins

British Potato 70%, Water, White Mature Cheddar Cheese 8% (_Milk_), Smoky Bacon 5% (Pork, Water, Salt, Sugar, Smoke Flavouring, Preservative (Sodium Nitrite)), Sunflower Oil, Monterey Jack Cheese 3% (_Milk_), _Mustard_ Powder, White Pepper.

Cartofiori de covasna

potatoes, sunflower oil, salt, spices, xantan gum, sodium ascorbate

FAQ

Which is healthier: Cheese & Bacon Potato Skins or Cartofiori de covasna?

Overall, Cartofiori de covasna 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?

Cartofiori de covasna has fewer calories: 89 kcal versus 174 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Cartofiori de covasna has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons