HuLaLa vs Nata para cocinar
Overall, Nata para cocinar has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 ml
| Nutrient | HuLaLa | Nata para cocinar |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 298 kcal | 189 kcal |
| Fat | 27 g | 18 g |
| Saturated fat | 27 g | 12.2 g |
| Sugars | 11 g | 3.7 g |
| Salt | 0.2 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 0.6 g | 2.4 g |
| Additives | 6 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk, Soybeans | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Nata para cocinar has 37% fewer calories (189 kcal vs 298 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 33% less fat (18 g vs 27 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 55% less saturated fat (12.2 g vs 27 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 66% less sugar (3.7 g vs 11 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 75% more protein (2.4 g vs 0.6 g).
- Nata para cocinar has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only HuLaLa lists: Soybeans.
Ingredients
HuLaLa
Víz, teljes mértékben hidrogénezett növényi zsírok és olajok (26%] [zsírok: pálmamag, olajok: napraforgó], cukor (11%), stabilizátorok: szorbit, hidroxipropil-cellulóz; tejfehérje, emulgeálószerek: E 472e, lecitinek (szója), E 472b; só, aromák, színezék: karotinok. Nyomokban földimogyorót tartalmazhat.
Nata para cocinar
light milk cream, natural starch, milk proteins,
FAQ
Which is healthier: HuLaLa or Nata para cocinar?
Overall, Nata para cocinar 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?
Nata para cocinar has fewer calories: 189 kcal versus 298 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nata para cocinar has less sugar: 3.7 g versus 11 g per 100 g.