Comparison

Collagen skin care, fruit taste vs Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides

Overall, Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientCollagen skin care, fruit ta...Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptid...
Nutri-Score a —
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 348 kcal 360 kcal
Fat 1 g 0.1 g
Saturated fat 0 g 0 g
Sugars 1.5 g 0 g
Salt 0.1 g —
Fiber 0.4 g 0 g
Protein 47 g 93 g
Additives20
AllergensFishNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides has 90% less fat (0.1 g vs 1 g).
  • Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides has no sugar, while Collagen skin care, fruit taste has 1.5 g.
  • Collagen skin care, fruit taste has 100% more fiber (0.4 g vs 0 g).
  • Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides has 49% more protein (93 g vs 47 g).
  • Only Collagen skin care, fruit taste lists: Fish.

Ingredients

Collagen skin care, fruit taste

Naticol (collagen peptide (fish) powder (50%) Maltodextrin, MSM (Methyl sulphonyl methane) powder, Ashwagandha (Withania Somnifera (L) Dure root) powder, strawberry flavour, stabilizer: cellulose, Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), red beet concentrate maltodextrin, red beet powder (Beta vulgaris)], sweetener: steviol glycosides from stevia.

Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides

Hydrolysed bovine collagen peptides from pasture-raised, grass-fed cows.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Collagen skin care, fruit taste or Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides?

Overall, Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides 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?

Collagen skin care, fruit taste has fewer calories: 348 kcal versus 360 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Swiss Bovine Collagen Peptides has less sugar: 0 g versus 1.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons