Comparison
Kritsinia vs Kritsisnack
Overall, Kritsisnack has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Kritsinia | Kritsisnack |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 496 kcal | 437 kcal |
| Fat | 28.3 g | 15 g |
| Saturated fat | 7.5 g | 1.6 g |
| Sugars | 4.6 g | 1.9 g |
| Salt | 1.5 g | 1.9 g |
| Fiber | — | 3.2 g |
| Protein | 12.9 g | 12 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kritsisnack has 12% fewer calories (437 kcal vs 496 kcal).
- Kritsisnack has 47% less fat (15 g vs 28.3 g).
- Kritsisnack has 79% less saturated fat (1.6 g vs 7.5 g).
- Kritsisnack has 59% less sugar (1.9 g vs 4.6 g).
- Kritsinia has 24% less salt (1.5 g vs 1.9 g).
- Kritsisnack has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Kritsinia
Not available.
Kritsisnack
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Kritsinia or Kritsisnack?
Overall, Kritsisnack 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?
Kritsisnack has fewer calories: 437 kcal versus 496 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kritsisnack has less sugar: 1.9 g versus 4.6 g per 100 g.