Comparison
Kirsch vs Abricotines
Overall, Kirsch has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Kirsch | Abricotines |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 0 kcal | 433 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 11 g |
| Saturated fat | — | 7.3 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 63 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.4 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 1.1 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 4.7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Eggs, Gluten, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kirsch has no calories, while Abricotines has 433 kcal.
- Kirsch has no fat, while Abricotines has 11 g.
- Kirsch has no sugar, while Abricotines has 63 g.
- Kirsch has no salt, while Abricotines has 0.4 g.
- Abricotines has 100% more fiber (1.1 g vs 0 g).
- Abricotines has 100% more protein (4.7 g vs 0 g).
- Only Abricotines lists: Eggs, Gluten, Milk.
Ingredients
Kirsch
Kirsch.
Abricotines
sucre, sucre Vanillé, abricots, oeufs, beurre, farine de blé
FAQ
Which is healthier: Kirsch or Abricotines?
Overall, Kirsch 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?
Kirsch has fewer calories: 0 kcal versus 433 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kirsch has less sugar: 0 g versus 63 g per 100 g.