Herta Knacki original bel vs Party knaks
Overall, Party knaks has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Herta Knacki original bel | Party knaks |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 269 kcal | 193 kcal |
| Fat | 23 g | 14 g |
| Saturated fat | 9 g | 5.2 g |
| Sugars | 2 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 1.8 g | 1.8 g |
| Fiber | 1.2 g | — |
| Protein | 13 g | 12 g |
| Additives | 3 | 5 |
| Allergens | Celery, Gluten, Milk, Pork | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Party knaks has 28% fewer calories (193 kcal vs 269 kcal).
- Party knaks has 39% less fat (14 g vs 23 g).
- Party knaks has 42% less saturated fat (5.2 g vs 9 g).
- Party knaks has 75% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2 g).
- Party knaks has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Herta Knacki original bel lists: Celery, Gluten, Milk, Pork.
Ingredients
Herta Knacki original bel
pork, water, pork fat, lactoserum (lactose), salt, milk protein 0,8%, yeast, wheat fiber, corn dextrose, flavors (celery, gluten), pea protein, colors (carmine, paprika extract), preservative (sodium nitrite), antioxidant (sodium isoascorbate), ferments, smoke,
Party knaks
varkensvlees^1 68%, water, aardappelzetmeel, zout, stabilisator (E451, E452), specerijen (witte peper, paprikapoeder), natuurlijk nootmuskaataroma, antioxidant (E301, E392), rookaroma, rundercollageen, conserveermiddel (E250)., Opgiet: water, zout.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Herta Knacki original bel or Party knaks?
Overall, Party knaks 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?
Party knaks has fewer calories: 193 kcal versus 269 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Party knaks has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2 g per 100 g.