Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse vs Kakaobutter
Overall, Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse | Kakaobutter |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 2 |
| Calories | 465 kcal | 900 kcal |
| Fat | 27.8 g | 100 g |
| Saturated fat | 2.3 g | 60 g |
| Sugars | 38.6 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 6.2 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 12 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Nuts | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has 48% fewer calories (465 kcal vs 900 kcal).
- Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has 72% less fat (27.8 g vs 100 g).
- Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has 96% less saturated fat (2.3 g vs 60 g).
- Kakaobutter has 99% less sugar (0.5 g vs 38.6 g).
- Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has 92% more fiber (6.2 g vs 0.5 g).
- Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has 96% more protein (12 g vs 0.5 g).
- Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has the better Nutri-Score.
- Kakaobutter is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse lists: Nuts.
Ingredients
Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse
MANDELN* 52%, Rohrohrzucker*, Invertzuckersirup*, Wasser, Alkohol* 0,6% *aus biologischer Landwirtschaft Kann Spuren von Haselnuss und Pistazie enthalten.
Kakaobutter
Kakaobutter* *aus biologischer Landwirtschaft. Kann Spuren von Soja, Milch und Nüssen enthalten.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse or Kakaobutter?
Overall, Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse 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?
Lübecker Marzipan Rohmasse has fewer calories: 465 kcal versus 900 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kakaobutter has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 38.6 g per 100 g.