Kaymak vs Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym
Overall, Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Kaymak | Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 239 kcal | 298 kcal |
| Fat | 22.5 g | 5.3 g |
| Saturated fat | 15.1 g | 2.5 g |
| Sugars | 3 g | 45 g |
| Salt | 0.7 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 6 g | 6.3 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| Allergens | Milk | Milk, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kaymak has 20% fewer calories (239 kcal vs 298 kcal).
- Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym has 76% less fat (5.3 g vs 22.5 g).
- Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym has 83% less saturated fat (2.5 g vs 15.1 g).
- Kaymak has 93% less sugar (3 g vs 45 g).
- Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym has 82% less salt (0.1 g vs 0.7 g).
- Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym has 100% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Kaymak is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym lists: Soybeans.
Ingredients
Kaymak
Pasteurized cream, Pasteurized cow's milk, Table salt, Lactic acid cultures
Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym
cukier, woda, _mleko_ w proszku odtłuszczone 15%, olej palmowy, kakao w proszku o obniżonej zawartości tłuszczu 1,6%, emulgator: lecytyny (z _soi_), aromaty. Produkt może zawierać gluten.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Kaymak or Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym?
Overall, Kajmak masa krówkowa o smaku kakaowym 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?
Kaymak has fewer calories: 239 kcal versus 298 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kaymak has less sugar: 3 g versus 45 g per 100 g.