Kadaif 500 GR S. V. X 20 Arev vs Jufka pâte phyllo
Overall, Jufka pâte phyllo has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Kadaif 500 GR S. V. X 20 Are... | Jufka pâte phyllo |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | b |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 283 kcal | 219 kcal |
| Fat | 6.2 g | 1.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.7 g | 0.2 g |
| Sugars | 0.9 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 2.6 g | 0.3 g |
| Fiber | 4.1 g | 1.7 g |
| Protein | 5.7 g | 5.6 g |
| Additives | 1 | 2 |
| Allergens | Gluten | Gluten, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Jufka pâte phyllo has 23% fewer calories (219 kcal vs 283 kcal).
- Jufka pâte phyllo has 74% less fat (1.6 g vs 6.2 g).
- Jufka pâte phyllo has 70% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 0.7 g).
- Jufka pâte phyllo has no sugar, while Kadaif 500 GR S. V. X 20 Arev has 0.9 g.
- Jufka pâte phyllo has 88% less salt (0.3 g vs 2.6 g).
- Kadaif 500 GR S. V. X 20 Arev has 58% more fiber (4.1 g vs 1.7 g).
- Jufka pâte phyllo has the better Nutri-Score.
- Kadaif 500 GR S. V. X 20 Arev is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Jufka pâte phyllo lists: Soybeans.
Ingredients
Kadaif 500 GR S. V. X 20 Arev
Farine de _blé_, eau, amidon de maïs, huile de tournesol, sel, conservateur : E202.
Jufka pâte phyllo
farine de blé, eau, amidon de blé, huile de tournesol, gluten de blé, sirop de glucose, frais, sel de cuisine, émulsifiant: lécithine de soja
FAQ
Which is healthier: Kadaif 500 GR S. V. X 20 Arev or Jufka pâte phyllo?
Overall, Jufka pâte phyllo 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?
Jufka pâte phyllo has fewer calories: 219 kcal versus 283 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Jufka pâte phyllo has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.9 g per 100 g.