Comparison

Electrolyte Drink Mix vs Locozade sport blue force

Overall, Locozade sport blue force has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientElectrolyte Drink MixLocozade sport blue force
Nutri-Score — b
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 281 kcal 27 kcal
Fat 0 g 0 g
Saturated fat — 0 g
Sugars 68.8 g 3.5 g
Salt 7.8 g 0.1 g
Fiber — 0 g
Protein 0 g 0 g
Additives43
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Locozade sport blue force has 90% fewer calories (27 kcal vs 281 kcal).
  • Locozade sport blue force has 95% less sugar (3.5 g vs 68.8 g).
  • Locozade sport blue force has 98% less salt (0.1 g vs 7.8 g).

Ingredients

Electrolyte Drink Mix

CANE SUGAR, DEXTROSE, CITRIC ACID, SALT, POTASSIUM CITRATE, SODIUM CITRATE, DIPOTASSIUM PHOSPHATE, L-THEANINE, SILICON DIOXIDE, COFFEEBERRY ENERGY COFFEE FRUIT, EXTRACT, STEVIA LEAF EXTRACT (REBAUDIOSIDE A), COGNATIO, COFFEE FRUIT EXTRACT, VITAMIN C (ASCORBIC ACID), NATURAL, FLAVORS, VITAMIN B3 (NIACINAMIDE), VITAMIN B5 (CALCIUM, D-PANTOTHENATE), VITAMIN B6 (PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE), VITAMIN B12 (CYANOCOBALAMIN)

Locozade sport blue force

Water, Glucose Syrup, Acid (eic Acid Acidity Regulator (Sodium Citrate), Flavouring, Sweeteners (Acesulfame K, Sucralose), Stabilisers Acacia Gu Glycerol Esters of Wood Rosins Guar Gun), Niacin (Vitamin B3) Colour (Brilliant

FAQ

Which is healthier: Electrolyte Drink Mix or Locozade sport blue force?

Overall, Locozade sport blue force 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?

Locozade sport blue force has fewer calories: 27 kcal versus 281 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Locozade sport blue force has less sugar: 3.5 g versus 68.8 g per 100 g.

More comparisons