Fischstäbchen vs Croustibat x16
Overall, Croustibat x16 has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Fischstäbchen | Croustibat x16 |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 185 kcal | 188 kcal |
| Fat | 7.9 g | 7.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 1 g | 0.6 g |
| Sugars | 1 g | 0.7 g |
| Salt | 0.7 g | 0.7 g |
| Fiber | 0.9 g | 0.9 g |
| Protein | 13 g | 13 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Fish, Gluten, Alaska SeeIachsfiIet | Fish, Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Croustibat x16 has 40% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 1 g).
- Croustibat x16 has 30% less sugar (0.7 g vs 1 g).
- Fischstäbchen is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Fischstäbchen lists: Alaska SeeIachsfiIet.
Ingredients
Fischstäbchen
65% _Alaska-SeeIachsfiIet_, _Weizenmehl_, Sonnenblumenöl, Kartoffelstärke, Wasser, Speisesalz, Hefe, Gewürze (Weißer Pfeffer, Paprika)
Croustibat x16
colin d'alaska 61%, chapelure 15%, (farine de blé 14%, huile de colza, sel , épices, levures), eau, huiles végétales (colza, coprah), farine de blé 5.8%, amidon de blé, sel, poivre blanc, arôme naturel.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Fischstäbchen or Croustibat x16?
Overall, Croustibat x16 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?
Fischstäbchen has fewer calories: 185 kcal versus 188 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Croustibat x16 has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 1 g per 100 g.