Comparison

Chicken & Bacon Twisters vs Sommervibber Grillspyd med svin

Overall, Chicken & Bacon Twisters has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientChicken & Bacon TwistersSommervibber Grillspyd med s...
Nutri-Score d d
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 186 kcal 218 kcal
Fat 11.4 g 16 g
Saturated fat 3.6 g 6 g
Sugars 4.3 g 0.5 g
Salt 1.3 g 1.2 g
Fiber 0 g —
Protein 15 g 17 g
Additives20
AllergensPorkNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Chicken & Bacon Twisters has 15% fewer calories (186 kcal vs 218 kcal).
  • Chicken & Bacon Twisters has 29% less fat (11.4 g vs 16 g).
  • Chicken & Bacon Twisters has 41% less saturated fat (3.6 g vs 6 g).
  • Sommervibber Grillspyd med svin has 88% less sugar (0.5 g vs 4.3 g).
  • Sommervibber Grillspyd med svin has 12% more protein (17 g vs 15 g).
  • Only Chicken & Bacon Twisters lists: Pork.

Ingredients

Chicken & Bacon Twisters

seasoned chicken breast (chicken breast, water, honey, modified corn starch, sugar , honey blend [sugar, honey], flavoring, vinegar with natural flavoring [dehydrated vinegar, citrus extract, spice], sodium phosphates, salt, mesquite smoked sugar [water, mesquite smoked sugar]), bacon (pork, water, salt, sodium phosphate, sodium erythorbate, sodium nitrite), dehydrated red bell pepper

Sommervibber Grillspyd med svin

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Chicken & Bacon Twisters or Sommervibber Grillspyd med svin?

Overall, Chicken & Bacon Twisters 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?

Chicken & Bacon Twisters has fewer calories: 186 kcal versus 218 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Sommervibber Grillspyd med svin has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 4.3 g per 100 g.

More comparisons