Croquants aux amandes vs Croquants de Provence aux Amandes
Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you.
Croquants aux amandes
Croquants de Provence aux Amandes
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Croquants aux amandes | Croquants de Provence aux Am... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 452 kcal | 432 kcal |
| Fat | 13 g | 13 g |
| Saturated fat | 1 g | 3.3 g |
| Sugars | 58 g | 30 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.3 g |
| Fiber | 3.5 g | 2.5 g |
| Protein | 10 g | 9.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| Allergens | Eggs, Gluten, Nuts | Eggs, Gluten, Milk, Nuts |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Croquants aux amandes has 70% less saturated fat (1 g vs 3.3 g).
- Croquants de Provence aux Amandes has 48% less sugar (30 g vs 58 g).
- Croquants aux amandes has 29% more fiber (3.5 g vs 2.5 g).
- Croquants de Provence aux Amandes has the better Nutri-Score.
- Croquants aux amandes is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Croquants de Provence aux Amandes lists: Milk.
Ingredients
Croquants aux amandes
Sucre, _amandes_ 23%, farine de _blé_, blancs d'_œufs_. Peut contenir des traces de lait et de noisettes. Sucre, farine et blanc d'œufs origine France. Amandes origine Californie.
Croquants de Provence aux Amandes
Farine de _blé_, sucre, _amandes_ décortiquées 14%, _œufs_, _beurre_ 5,3%, arôme, poudre à lever : carbonates de sodium, sirop de malt d'_orge_.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Croquants aux amandes or Croquants de Provence aux Amandes?
Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you. 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?
Croquants de Provence aux Amandes has fewer calories: 432 kcal versus 452 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Croquants de Provence aux Amandes has less sugar: 30 g versus 58 g per 100 g.