Fan of P!k vs 250G Bubblizz Lutti
Overall, 250G Bubblizz Lutti has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Fan of P!k | 250G Bubblizz Lutti |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 365 kcal | 339 kcal |
| Fat | 2.2 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.5 g | — |
| Sugars | 61 g | 66 g |
| Salt | 0.4 g | 0.3 g |
| Protein | 0.9 g | 5.2 g |
| Additives | 14 | 8 |
| Allergens | Gluten | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- 250G Bubblizz Lutti has no fat, while Fan of P!k has 2.2 g.
- 250G Bubblizz Lutti has 83% more protein (5.2 g vs 0.9 g).
- Only Fan of P!k lists: Gluten.
Ingredients
Fan of P!k
Sucre; sirop de glucose; amidon; humectants: sorbitol, sirop de sorbitol; farine de blé; acidifiants: acide citrique, acide malique; correcteurs d'acidité: citrate tricalcique, citrate trisodique, malate acide de sodium; agent d'enrobage: cire de carnauba; graisse de palme; dextrose; amidon de blé; émulsifiant: mono-et diglycérides d'acides gras; gélatine; arôme; concentrés de fruits et de plantes: spiruline, cassis, baie de sureau, aronie, raisin, patate douce, pomme, radis, carotte, hibiscus; extrait de baie de sureau; colorant: curcumine.
250G Bubblizz Lutti
Sirop de glucose-fructose, Sucre, Gélatine, Acidifiants (Acide citrique, Acide malique), Correcteur d'acidité (Malate de sodium), Colorants (E120, E133, E170), Arôme, SANS GLUTEN
FAQ
Which is healthier: Fan of P!k or 250G Bubblizz Lutti?
Overall, 250G Bubblizz Lutti 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?
250G Bubblizz Lutti has fewer calories: 339 kcal versus 365 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Fan of P!k has less sugar: 61 g versus 66 g per 100 g.