Comparison

Crinkle Cut Oven Chips vs Patatine al sale marino e aceto di vino balsamico di Modena

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

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientCrinkle Cut Oven ChipsPatatine al sale marino e ac...
Nutri-Score a d
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 163 kcal 494 kcal
Fat 4.3 g 29 g
Saturated fat 0.6 g 2.4 g
Sugars 0.3 g 1.7 g
Salt 0.1 g 1.6 g
Fiber 3.3 g —
Protein 3.1 g 6.1 g
Additives01
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has 67% fewer calories (163 kcal vs 494 kcal).
  • Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has 85% less fat (4.3 g vs 29 g).
  • Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has 75% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 2.4 g).
  • Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has 82% less sugar (0.3 g vs 1.7 g).
  • Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has 93% less salt (0.1 g vs 1.6 g).
  • Patatine al sale marino e aceto di vino balsamico di Modena has 49% more protein (6.1 g vs 3.1 g).
  • Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Crinkle Cut Oven Chips is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

Crinkle Cut Oven Chips

96% Potatoes, 4% Sunflower Oil.

Patatine al sale marino e aceto di vino balsamico di Modena

Patate, olio di semi di girasole, sale, Aceto Balsamico di Modena IGP, maltodestrina, zucchero, fecola di patate, acido citrico; aroma naturale

FAQ

Which is healthier: Crinkle Cut Oven Chips or Patatine al sale marino e aceto di vino balsamico di Modena?

Overall, Crinkle Cut Oven Chips 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?

Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has fewer calories: 163 kcal versus 494 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Crinkle Cut Oven Chips has less sugar: 0.3 g versus 1.7 g per 100 g.

More comparisons