Garlic & Herbs vs Philadelphia Bieslook
Overall, Philadelphia Bieslook has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Garlic & Herbs | Philadelphia Bieslook |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | c |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 385 kcal | 144 kcal |
| Fat | 39 g | 10 g |
| Saturated fat | 26 g | 6.8 g |
| Sugars | 2.5 g | 5.1 g |
| Salt | 1.2 g | 1 g |
| Fiber | 0.1 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 8.5 g | 7.2 g |
| Additives | 1 | 2 |
| Allergens | Milk, Crème | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Philadelphia Bieslook has 63% fewer calories (144 kcal vs 385 kcal).
- Philadelphia Bieslook has 74% less fat (10 g vs 39 g).
- Philadelphia Bieslook has 74% less saturated fat (6.8 g vs 26 g).
- Garlic & Herbs has 51% less sugar (2.5 g vs 5.1 g).
- Philadelphia Bieslook has 80% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0.1 g).
- Garlic & Herbs has 15% more protein (8.5 g vs 7.2 g).
- Philadelphia Bieslook has the better Nutri-Score.
- Garlic & Herbs is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Garlic & Herbs lists: Crème.
Ingredients
Garlic & Herbs
pasteurized milk and cream, lactic ferments, garlic and herbs 1,8%, salt, pepper, may contain traces of nuts, preservative (potassium sorbate)
Philadelphia Bieslook
Volle melk, melkeiwittenbereiding, room, weipermeaatconcentraat (van melk), bieslook, zout, stabilisatoren (johannesbroodpitmeel, carrageen), voedingszuur (citroenzuur),
FAQ
Which is healthier: Garlic & Herbs or Philadelphia Bieslook?
Overall, Philadelphia Bieslook 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?
Philadelphia Bieslook has fewer calories: 144 kcal versus 385 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Garlic & Herbs has less sugar: 2.5 g versus 5.1 g per 100 g.