Comparison
Land: Italian " vs Nata para cocinar
Overall, Nata para cocinar has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 ml
| Nutrient | Land: Italian " | Nata para cocinar |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 224 kcal | 189 kcal |
| Fat | 22 g | 18 g |
| Saturated fat | 15 g | 12.2 g |
| Sugars | 3.8 g | 3.7 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 1.4 g | — |
| Protein | 2.6 g | 2.4 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk, PANNA | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Nata para cocinar has 16% fewer calories (189 kcal vs 224 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 18% less fat (18 g vs 22 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 19% less saturated fat (12.2 g vs 15 g).
- Only Land: Italian " lists: PANNA.
Ingredients
Land: Italian "
PANNA, stabilizzante (carragenina).
Nata para cocinar
light milk cream, natural starch, milk proteins,
FAQ
Which is healthier: Land: Italian " or Nata para cocinar?
Overall, Nata para cocinar 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?
Nata para cocinar has fewer calories: 189 kcal versus 224 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nata para cocinar has less sugar: 3.7 g versus 3.8 g per 100 g.