Comparison
Haferflocken vs Instant rolled oats
Overall, Haferflocken has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Haferflocken | Instant rolled oats |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | — |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 372 kcal | 414 kcal |
| Fat | 7 g | 9.2 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.3 g | 1.7 g |
| Sugars | 0.7 g | 0.4 g |
| Salt | 0 g | — |
| Fiber | 10 g | 10.2 g |
| Protein | 14 g | 11.4 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
- Haferflocken has 10% fewer calories (372 kcal vs 414 kcal).
- Haferflocken has 24% less fat (7 g vs 9.2 g).
- Haferflocken has 24% less saturated fat (1.3 g vs 1.7 g).
- Haferflocken has 19% more protein (14 g vs 11.4 g).
Ingredients
Haferflocken
Bio Haferflocken Kleinblatt
Instant rolled oats
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Haferflocken or Instant rolled oats?
Overall, Haferflocken 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?
Haferflocken has fewer calories: 372 kcal versus 414 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Instant rolled oats has less sugar: 0.4 g versus 0.7 g per 100 g.