Comparison

Copos de avena sin gluten vs Churrasco de pollo asado con patatas

Overall, Copos de avena sin gluten has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientCopos de avena sin glutenChurrasco de pollo asado con...
Nutri-Score a c
NOVA group 1 4
Calories 370 kcal 157 kcal
Fat 6.5 g 9.3 g
Saturated fat 1.3 g 2 g
Sugars 1 g 0.8 g
Salt 0 g 1.6 g
Fiber 11 g 0.2 g
Protein 14 g 12.4 g
Additives00
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Churrasco de pollo asado con patatas has 58% fewer calories (157 kcal vs 370 kcal).
  • Copos de avena sin gluten has 30% less fat (6.5 g vs 9.3 g).
  • Copos de avena sin gluten has 35% less saturated fat (1.3 g vs 2 g).
  • Copos de avena sin gluten has no salt, while Churrasco de pollo asado con patatas has 1.6 g.
  • Copos de avena sin gluten has 98% more fiber (11 g vs 0.2 g).
  • Copos de avena sin gluten has 11% more protein (14 g vs 12.4 g).
  • Copos de avena sin gluten has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Copos de avena sin gluten is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

Copos de avena sin gluten

Avena

Churrasco de pollo asado con patatas

muslo de pollo, sal, dextrosa, aceite de oliva, almidon, especias, extracto de levadura, estabilizantes, aroma, patatas, correctores de acidez, sal, azucar. Sin gluten.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Copos de avena sin gluten or Churrasco de pollo asado con patatas?

Overall, Copos de avena sin gluten 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?

Churrasco de pollo asado con patatas has fewer calories: 157 kcal versus 370 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Churrasco de pollo asado con patatas has less sugar: 0.8 g versus 1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons