Küstencola vs Kofola
Overall, Kofola has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 ml
| Nutrient | Küstencola | Kofola |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 38 kcal | 32 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 9.5 g | 8 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 3 | 4 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kofola has 16% fewer calories (32 kcal vs 38 kcal).
- Küstencola has no fat, while Kofola has 0.5 g.
- Kofola has 16% less sugar (8 g vs 9.5 g).
- Kofola has 100% more protein (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Kofola has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Küstencola
Wasser, Zucker, Kohlensäure, Ammonsulfit-Zuckerkulör, Phosphorsäure, Aroma Koffein, natürliches Aroma
Kofola
Voda, sirup KOFO® (ovocný sirup, cukr, glukózo-fruktó - zový sirup, voda, karamel, barvivo E150d, kyselina citrónová, chlorid sodný, esence pro KOFO®- aroma, bylinný extrakt - přírodní aroma, lékořicový extrakt - přírodní aroma, kofein, konzervant E211), oxid uhličitý
FAQ
Which is healthier: Küstencola or Kofola?
Overall, Kofola 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?
Kofola has fewer calories: 32 kcal versus 38 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kofola has less sugar: 8 g versus 9.5 g per 100 g.