Comparison

Haricots bruns sauce Chili vs Kikkererwten in curry

Overall, Haricots bruns sauce Chili has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientHaricots bruns sauce ChiliKikkererwten in curry
Nutri-Score a b
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 108 kcal 118 kcal
Fat 0.7 g 6.5 g
Saturated fat 0.1 g 1 g
Sugars 3.6 g 1.1 g
Salt 0.8 g 0.7 g
Fiber 5.7 g 4.3 g
Protein 5.6 g 3.7 g
Additives10
AllergensNone listedNone listed

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Haricots bruns sauce Chili has 89% less fat (0.7 g vs 6.5 g).
  • Haricots bruns sauce Chili has 90% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 1 g).
  • Kikkererwten in curry has 69% less sugar (1.1 g vs 3.6 g).
  • Haricots bruns sauce Chili has 25% more fiber (5.7 g vs 4.3 g).
  • Haricots bruns sauce Chili has 34% more protein (5.6 g vs 3.7 g).
  • Haricots bruns sauce Chili has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Kikkererwten in curry is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

Haricots bruns sauce Chili

Haricots bruns (53 %), eau, purée de tomate double concentrée, sucre, épices (piments, cumin), sel, amidon modifié.

Kikkererwten in curry

60% currysaus (water, tomatenpuree, raapzaadolie, kokosmelk (kokosnootextract, water), ui, specerijen (kurkuma, 0,4% koriander, komijn, zwarte peper, kaneel, kardemom, kruidnagel), gember, 1,2% knoflook, zeezout, chili stukjes), 40% kikkererwten.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Haricots bruns sauce Chili or Kikkererwten in curry?

Overall, Haricots bruns sauce Chili 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?

Haricots bruns sauce Chili has fewer calories: 108 kcal versus 118 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Kikkererwten in curry has less sugar: 1.1 g versus 3.6 g per 100 g.

More comparisons