Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, vs Effervescente
Overall, Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.
Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller,
Effervescente
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee... | Effervescente |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 31 kcal | 272 kcal |
| Fat | 2.4 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0.7 g | 66 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 10.8 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 0.1 g | 0 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
- Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has 89% fewer calories (31 kcal vs 272 kcal).
- Effervescente has no fat, while Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has 2.4 g.
- Effervescente has no saturated fat, while Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has 0.6 g.
- Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has 99% less sugar (0.7 g vs 66 g).
- Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has no salt, while Effervescente has 10.8 g.
Ingredients
Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller,
Not available.
Effervescente
Preparato granul - hsredeoti: zjxchero; cor
FAQ
Which is healthier: Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, or Effervescente?
Overall, Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, 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?
Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has fewer calories: 31 kcal versus 272 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Cremant d'Alsace brut, cuvee St Sebastien Hauller, has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 66 g per 100 g.