Leibniz Zoo Kiks m. kakao vs Pudliszki Tomatpuré
Overall, Pudliszki Tomatpuré has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Leibniz Zoo Kiks m. kakao | Pudliszki Tomatpuré |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | a |
| NOVA group | 4 | 1 |
| Calories | 426 kcal | 99 kcal |
| Fat | 11 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.3 g | 0.2 g |
| Sugars | 27 g | 17 g |
| Salt | 0.6 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 7.1 g | 3.7 g |
| Protein | 7.3 g | 5.3 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | Gluten, Milk | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pudliszki Tomatpuré has 77% fewer calories (99 kcal vs 426 kcal).
- Pudliszki Tomatpuré has 95% less fat (0.5 g vs 11 g).
- Pudliszki Tomatpuré has 85% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 1.3 g).
- Pudliszki Tomatpuré has 37% less sugar (17 g vs 27 g).
- Pudliszki Tomatpuré has 86% less salt (0.1 g vs 0.6 g).
- Leibniz Zoo Kiks m. kakao has 48% more fiber (7.1 g vs 3.7 g).
- Leibniz Zoo Kiks m. kakao has 27% more protein (7.3 g vs 5.3 g).
- Pudliszki Tomatpuré has the better Nutri-Score.
- Pudliszki Tomatpuré is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Leibniz Zoo Kiks m. kakao lists: Gluten, Milk.
Ingredients
Leibniz Zoo Kiks m. kakao
HVEDEMEL (64 %), sukker,solsikke, fedtfattigt kakaopulver (3,9 %),oligofruktose, hævemiddel:natriumkarbonater,ammoniumcarbonater, salt, emulgator:lecithiner, (MÆLK). Kan indeholde: ÆG.
Pudliszki Tomatpuré
Tomatpuré.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Leibniz Zoo Kiks m. kakao or Pudliszki Tomatpuré?
Overall, Pudliszki Tomatpuré 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?
Pudliszki Tomatpuré has fewer calories: 99 kcal versus 426 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pudliszki Tomatpuré has less sugar: 17 g versus 27 g per 100 g.