Comparison

Lait riz soufflé croquant vs Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia

Overall, Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientLait riz soufflé croquantMilk chocolate and puffed ri...
Nutri-Score e d
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 546 kcal 450 kcal
Fat 32 g 29 g
Saturated fat 19 g 18 g
Sugars 49 g 6.4 g
Salt 0.2 g 0.2 g
Fiber 2.2 g —
Protein 7.4 g 5.3 g
Additives20
AllergensMilkNone listed

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia has 18% fewer calories (450 kcal vs 546 kcal).
  • Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia has 87% less sugar (6.4 g vs 49 g).
  • Lait riz soufflé croquant has 28% more protein (7.4 g vs 5.3 g).
  • Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Lait riz soufflé croquant lists: Milk.

Ingredients

Lait riz soufflé croquant

Sucre de canne**, beurre de cacao**, poudre de lait entier, pâte de cacao** (Équateur, Pérou), riz soufflé 7% (farine de riz, sucre de canne), poudre de lait écrémé, émulsifiant: lécithine de tournesol. Peut contenir des fruits à coque et du soja. 100% des ingrédients agricoles sont issus de l'agriculture biologique.

Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Lait riz soufflé croquant or Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia?

Overall, Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia 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?

Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia has fewer calories: 450 kcal versus 546 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Milk chocolate and puffed rice with stevia has less sugar: 6.4 g versus 49 g per 100 g.

More comparisons