Küstencola vs Original
Overall, Küstencola has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Küstencola | Original |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 38 kcal | 42 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 9.5 g | 10.6 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 0 g | 0 g |
| Additives | 3 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Küstencola has 10% less sugar (9.5 g vs 10.6 g).
Ingredients
Küstencola
Wasser, Zucker, Kohlensäure, Ammonsulfit-Zuckerkulör, Phosphorsäure, Aroma Koffein, natürliches Aroma
Original
Sprankelend water, suiker, kleurstof: E150d, voedingszuur: E338, natuurlijke aroma's (plantenextracten), waaronder cafeïne
FAQ
Which is healthier: Küstencola or Original?
Overall, Küstencola 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?
Küstencola has fewer calories: 38 kcal versus 42 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Küstencola has less sugar: 9.5 g versus 10.6 g per 100 g.