Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen vs Ditali rigati mais e riso
Overall, Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leins... | Ditali rigati mais e riso |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | c |
| NOVA group | 1 | 4 |
| Calories | 313 kcal | 361 kcal |
| Fat | 2 g | 2.3 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 1.1 g |
| Sugars | 1.4 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.2 g |
| Fiber | 6.8 g | 3.3 g |
| Protein | 23 g | 6.3 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 13% fewer calories (313 kcal vs 361 kcal).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 45% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 1.1 g).
- Ditali rigati mais e riso has no sugar, while Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 1.4 g.
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 51% more fiber (6.8 g vs 3.3 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 73% more protein (23 g vs 6.3 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has the better Nutri-Score.
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen
97% Rote Linsen, gemahlen, 3% Leinsamen
Ditali rigati mais e riso
Farina di Mais 89,5%, farina di Riso integrale 10%, emulsionante: mono - e digliceridi degli acidi grassi.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen or Ditali rigati mais e riso?
Overall, Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen 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?
Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has fewer calories: 313 kcal versus 361 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Ditali rigati mais e riso has less sugar: 0 g versus 1.4 g per 100 g.