Lovely cherry vs Ciliegie amarane ricoperte di cioccolato fondente
Overall, Lovely cherry has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.
Lovely cherry
Ciliegie amarane ricoperte di cioccolato fondente
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Lovely cherry | Ciliegie amarane ricoperte d... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 430 kcal | 435 kcal |
| Fat | 19 g | 15.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 12 g | 9.9 g |
| Sugars | 41.9 g | 71.7 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 7.5 g | 1.2 g |
| Protein | 3 g | 1.8 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Ciliegie amarane ricoperte di cioccolato fondente has 17% less fat (15.7 g vs 19 g).
- Ciliegie amarane ricoperte di cioccolato fondente has 17% less saturated fat (9.9 g vs 12 g).
- Lovely cherry has 42% less sugar (41.9 g vs 71.7 g).
- Lovely cherry has 84% more fiber (7.5 g vs 1.2 g).
- Lovely cherry has 40% more protein (3 g vs 1.8 g).
- Only Lovely cherry lists: Milk.
Ingredients
Lovely cherry
57% chocolat noir (sucre, pâte de cacao, beurre de cacao, lactose, lait entier en poudre, émulsifiant : lécithines (tournesol)), 18% liqueur (sirop de glucose, alcool, concentré de jus de cassis, arômes naturels, acidifiant : acide citrique), 16% cerises entières dénoyautées, sirop de glucose-fructose.
Ciliegie amarane ricoperte di cioccolato fondente
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Lovely cherry or Ciliegie amarane ricoperte di cioccolato fondente?
Overall, Lovely cherry 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?
Lovely cherry has fewer calories: 430 kcal versus 435 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Lovely cherry has less sugar: 41.9 g versus 71.7 g per 100 g.