Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen vs Pasta di mais e riso senza glutine
Overall, Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 2.
Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen
Pasta di mais e riso senza glutine
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leins... | Pasta di mais e riso senza g... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | b |
| NOVA group | 1 | 1 |
| Calories | 313 kcal | 352 kcal |
| Fat | 2 g | 1.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 0.4 g |
| Sugars | 1.4 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 6.8 g | 1 g |
| Protein | 23 g | 8 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| 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 11% fewer calories (313 kcal vs 352 kcal).
- Pasta di mais e riso senza glutine has 30% less fat (1.4 g vs 2 g).
- Pasta di mais e riso senza glutine has 64% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.4 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 85% more fiber (6.8 g vs 1 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 65% more protein (23 g vs 8 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen
97% Rote Linsen, gemahlen, 3% Leinsamen
Pasta di mais e riso senza glutine
Farina di mais giallo (60%), farina di mais bianco (20%), farina di riso (20%). Può contenere soia, senape, lupini.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen or Pasta di mais e riso senza glutine?
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 352 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pasta di mais e riso senza glutine has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.4 g per 100 g.