Comparison
Küstencola vs Royal Crown Cola
Overall, Küstencola has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 ml
| Nutrient | Küstencola | Royal Crown Cola |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 38 kcal | 45 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 9.5 g | 11 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| 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 16% fewer calories (38 kcal vs 45 kcal).
- Küstencola has no fat, while Royal Crown Cola has 0.5 g.
- Küstencola has 14% less sugar (9.5 g vs 11 g).
- Royal Crown Cola has 100% more protein (0.5 g vs 0 g).
Ingredients
Küstencola
Wasser, Zucker, Kohlensäure, Ammonsulfit-Zuckerkulör, Phosphorsäure, Aroma Koffein, natürliches Aroma
Royal Crown Cola
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Küstencola or Royal Crown Cola?
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 45 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Küstencola has less sugar: 9.5 g versus 11 g per 100 g.