Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen vs Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten
Overall, Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.
Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen
Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leins... | Pasta d'oro fettuccine de ma... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | b |
| NOVA group | 1 | 1 |
| Calories | 313 kcal | 345 kcal |
| Fat | 2 g | 0.8 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 1.4 g | 1 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 6.8 g | 2.6 g |
| Protein | 23 g | 5.5 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
- Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten has 60% less fat (0.8 g vs 2 g).
- Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten has no saturated fat, while Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 0.6 g.
- Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten has 29% less sugar (1 g vs 1.4 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 63% more fiber (6.8 g vs 2.6 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has 76% more protein (23 g vs 5.5 g).
- Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen
97% Rote Linsen, gemahlen, 3% Leinsamen
Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten
100% harina de maíz, agua.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Goodel Rote Linsen Mit Leinsamen or Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten?
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 345 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pasta d'oro fettuccine de maíz sin gluten has less sugar: 1 g versus 1.4 g per 100 g.