Chips falafels vs Crunchm
Overall, Chips falafels has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Chips falafels | Crunchm |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 527 kcal | 556 kcal |
| Fat | 32 g | 33.8 g |
| Saturated fat | 2.7 g | 16 g |
| Sugars | 0.6 g | 6 g |
| Salt | 1.3 g | 1.7 g |
| Fiber | 4.8 g | 5.6 g |
| Protein | 6.4 g | 6.5 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
- Chips falafels has 83% less saturated fat (2.7 g vs 16 g).
- Chips falafels has 90% less sugar (0.6 g vs 6 g).
- Chips falafels has 25% less salt (1.3 g vs 1.7 g).
- Crunchm has 14% more fiber (5.6 g vs 4.8 g).
- Chips falafels has the better Nutri-Score.
- Crunchm is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Chips falafels
Pommes de terre* (60,9%), huile de tournesol (32%), épices et plantes aromatiques (2,4%) (oignon, cumin, coriandre, ail, persil, poivre, menthe, gingembre, piment), farine de riz, sel, farine de pois chiche (1,2%), arômes naturels. Traces éventuelles de: lait, céleri, moutarde.
Crunchm
Potato
FAQ
Which is healthier: Chips falafels or Crunchm?
Overall, Chips falafels 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?
Chips falafels has fewer calories: 527 kcal versus 556 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Chips falafels has less sugar: 0.6 g versus 6 g per 100 g.