Comparison

Chips Craquante Sel Brets vs Sea salt & cider vinegar

Overall, Chips Craquante Sel Brets has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientChips Craquante Sel BretsSea salt & cider vinegar
Nutri-Score c d
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 540 kcal 467 kcal
Fat 34 g 25 g
Saturated fat 2.7 g 2.2 g
Sugars 0.5 g 2.5 g
Salt 0.6 g 1.8 g
Fiber 4.9 g 5.1 g
Protein 6.1 g 5.8 g
Additives01
AllergensNone listedGluten

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

Key differences

  • Sea salt & cider vinegar has 14% fewer calories (467 kcal vs 540 kcal).
  • Sea salt & cider vinegar has 26% less fat (25 g vs 34 g).
  • Sea salt & cider vinegar has 19% less saturated fat (2.2 g vs 2.7 g).
  • Chips Craquante Sel Brets has 80% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2.5 g).
  • Chips Craquante Sel Brets has 66% less salt (0.6 g vs 1.8 g).
  • Chips Craquante Sel Brets has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Chips Craquante Sel Brets is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Sea salt & cider vinegar lists: Gluten.

Ingredients

Chips Craquante Sel Brets

potatoes (france) (64,9%), sunflower oil (34%), guérande salt (1,1%)

Sea salt & cider vinegar

Aardappelen, zonnebloemolie, aardappelmaltodextrine, zeezout, aardappelzetmeel, gedroogde appelazijn, gedroogde alcoholazijn, suiker, natuurlijke smaakstoffen, gedroogde moutazijn (_GERST_), appelpoeder, antioxidant (rozemarijnextract)

FAQ

Which is healthier: Chips Craquante Sel Brets or Sea salt & cider vinegar?

Overall, Chips Craquante Sel Brets 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?

Sea salt & cider vinegar has fewer calories: 467 kcal versus 540 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Chips Craquante Sel Brets has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons