Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% vs Ghee
Overall, Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Looping Halbfettmargarine 39... | Ghee |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 376 kcal | 896 kcal |
| Fat | 39.4 g | 99 g |
| Saturated fat | 12.1 g | 65 g |
| Sugars | 0.3 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 0.2 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 5 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% has 58% fewer calories (376 kcal vs 896 kcal).
- Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% has 60% less fat (39.4 g vs 99 g).
- Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% has 81% less saturated fat (12.1 g vs 65 g).
- Ghee has 98% less salt (0 g vs 0.5 g).
- Ghee has 100% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Ghee has 60% more protein (0.5 g vs 0.2 g).
- Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Looping Halbfettmargarine 39%
Halbfettmargarine 39% Zutaten : Wasser, pflanzliche Öle und Fette (Raps Palm, in veränderlichen Gewichtsanteilen), modifziete Stärke, Emulgator (E471, Magermilchpulver, Salz (0,5 %) Konservierungsstoff (E202), Aroma, Säuerungsmittel (Zitronensäure, Milchsäure ), Farbstoff (Carotine), Vitamine (Vitamin D), Gesamtfettgehalt : 39 %,
Ghee
BUTTER* geklärt *aus biologischer Landwirtschaft
FAQ
Which is healthier: Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% or Ghee?
Overall, Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% 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?
Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% has fewer calories: 376 kcal versus 896 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Looping Halbfettmargarine 39% has less sugar: 0.3 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.