Comparison

Frites Saus Classic vs Friteslijn

Overall, Friteslijn has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientFrites Saus ClassicFriteslijn
Nutri-Score d b
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 293 kcal 99 kcal
Fat 26 g 5.3 g
Saturated fat 2 g 0.6 g
Sugars 9.3 g 3.3 g
Salt 1.7 g 0 g
Fiber 0.1 g 0.1 g
Protein 0.7 g 0.6 g
Additives57
AllergensEggs, MustardEggs, Mustard

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

Key differences

  • Friteslijn has 66% fewer calories (99 kcal vs 293 kcal).
  • Friteslijn has 80% less fat (5.3 g vs 26 g).
  • Friteslijn has 70% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 2 g).
  • Friteslijn has 65% less sugar (3.3 g vs 9.3 g).
  • Friteslijn has no salt, while Frites Saus Classic has 1.7 g.
  • Friteslijn has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Frites Saus Classic

Water, raapolie, suiker, azijn, mosterd (water, mosterdzaden, azijn, specerijen), maiszetmeel, vrije uitloop eigeel, zout, gemodificeerd maiszetmeel, verdikkingsmiddel: guarpitmeel, voedingszuur: citroenzuur, conserveermiddel: kaliumsorbaat, aroma, antioxidant: E385, kleurstof: caroteen,

Friteslijn

Water, natuurazijn, maiszetmeel, inuline, raapolie 4%, suiker, vrije uitloop eigeel, gemodificeerd maiszetmeel, mosterd (water, mosterdzaden, natuurazijn, specerijen), zout, verdikkingsmiddel: guarpitmeel, kleurstof,betacaroteen, conserveermiddel: kaliumsorbaat, aroma, voedingszuur: citroenzuur, zoetstof: sucralose, antioxidant: E385,

FAQ

Which is healthier: Frites Saus Classic or Friteslijn?

Overall, Friteslijn 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?

Friteslijn has fewer calories: 99 kcal versus 293 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Friteslijn has less sugar: 3.3 g versus 9.3 g per 100 g.

More comparisons