Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut vs Rape vegetal
Overall, Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.
Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut
Rape vegetal
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes B... | Rape vegetal |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | e |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 32 kcal | 648 kcal |
| Fat | 0.4 g | 56 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 10 g |
| Sugars | 2.6 g | 1.6 g |
| Salt | 1.9 g | 1.9 g |
| Fiber | 3.1 g | 4.1 g |
| Protein | 1.4 g | 20 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Nuts |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut has 95% fewer calories (32 kcal vs 648 kcal).
- Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut has 99% less fat (0.4 g vs 56 g).
- Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut has 99% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 10 g).
- Rape vegetal has 38% less sugar (1.6 g vs 2.6 g).
- Rape vegetal has 24% more fiber (4.1 g vs 3.1 g).
- Rape vegetal has 93% more protein (20 g vs 1.4 g).
- Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Rape vegetal lists: Nuts.
Ingredients
Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut
Weißkohl*, Karotte*, Steinsalz, Zwiebel*, Knoblauch*, Paprika*, Ingwer*, Chili*, Paprika-Pulver*
Rape vegetal
Noix de cajou* 75,5%, noix de macadamia* 18.9%, eau, sel, épices, bactéries lactiques
FAQ
Which is healthier: Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut or Rape vegetal?
Overall, Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut 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?
Kimchi-Style Fermentiertes Bio-Kraut has fewer calories: 32 kcal versus 648 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Rape vegetal has less sugar: 1.6 g versus 2.6 g per 100 g.