Comparison

Cinammon roll vs Kanelboller

Overall, Kanelboller has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientCinammon rollKanelboller
Nutri-Score e c
NOVA group — 4
Calories 411 kcal 326 kcal
Fat 21.5 g 8.3 g
Saturated fat 12.1 g 1.8 g
Sugars 19.5 g 14.9 g
Salt 0.7 g 0.3 g
Fiber 2 g 2.4 g
Protein 7.7 g 6.9 g
Additives06
AllergensNone listedGluten

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

Key differences

  • Kanelboller has 21% fewer calories (326 kcal vs 411 kcal).
  • Kanelboller has 61% less fat (8.3 g vs 21.5 g).
  • Kanelboller has 85% less saturated fat (1.8 g vs 12.1 g).
  • Kanelboller has 24% less sugar (14.9 g vs 19.5 g).
  • Kanelboller has 57% less salt (0.3 g vs 0.7 g).
  • Kanelboller has 17% more fiber (2.4 g vs 2 g).
  • Cinammon roll has 10% more protein (7.7 g vs 6.9 g).
  • Kanelboller has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Kanelboller lists: Gluten.

Ingredients

Cinammon roll

Not available.

Kanelboller

Hvetemel, vann, kanelfyll 14,8 % (sukker, vann, modifisert potetstivelse (E1442, E1414), rapsolje, glukosesirup, hvetemel, kanel (3,0 %), potetgranulat, potetfiber, konserveringsmiddel (E202), vegetabilsk emulgator (E471), salt), sukker, vegetabilsk olje og vegetabilsk fett (rapsolje, fullherdet raps og kokos), gjær, kardemomme, salt, vegetabilsk emulgator (E472e, E471), smøraroma, melbehandlingsmiddel (E300), enzymer. Kan forekomme spor av: _Soya_, _melk_, _egg_, _nøtter_, _sesamfrø_.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Cinammon roll or Kanelboller?

Overall, Kanelboller 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?

Kanelboller has fewer calories: 326 kcal versus 411 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Kanelboller has less sugar: 14.9 g versus 19.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons