Comparison

Excellence Noir Délicat Doux 85% Cacao vs CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel

Overall, CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientExcellence Noir Délicat Doux...CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 603 kcal 529 kcal
Fat 55 g 30 g
Saturated fat 33 g 14 g
Sugars 14 g 51 g
Salt 0 g 0.8 g
Fiber 0 g 4.4 g
Protein 8.9 g 8.9 g
Additives20
AllergensNuts, SoybeansMilk, Nuts, Soybeans

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

Key differences

  • CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel has 12% fewer calories (529 kcal vs 603 kcal).
  • CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel has 45% less fat (30 g vs 55 g).
  • CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel has 58% less saturated fat (14 g vs 33 g).
  • Excellence Noir Délicat Doux 85% Cacao has 73% less sugar (14 g vs 51 g).
  • Excellence Noir Délicat Doux 85% Cacao has 96% less salt (0 g vs 0.8 g).
  • CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel has 100% more fiber (4.4 g vs 0 g).
  • Only CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel lists: Milk.

Ingredients

Excellence Noir Délicat Doux 85% Cacao

pâte de cacao, beurre de cacao, sucre, noisettes, fruits à coque, lécithine de soja

CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel

Suiker, amandelen (15 %), cacaomassa, magere melkpoeder, cacaoboter, weipoeder (van melk), melkvet, glucosestroop, zout (0,5 %), emulgator (sojalecithinen), aroma's.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Excellence Noir Délicat Doux 85% Cacao or CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel?

Overall, CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel 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?

CÔTE D'OR Bloc melk amandel has fewer calories: 529 kcal versus 603 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Excellence Noir Délicat Doux 85% Cacao has less sugar: 14 g versus 51 g per 100 g.

More comparisons