Milbona kruidenboter vs Kruidenboter knoflook
Overall, Milbona kruidenboter has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Milbona kruidenboter | Kruidenboter knoflook |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 2 |
| Calories | 650 kcal | 728 kcal |
| Fat | 70.6 g | 79 g |
| Saturated fat | 49.9 g | 48 g |
| Sugars | 1.7 g | 0.6 g |
| Salt | 0.8 g | 1.2 g |
| Fiber | — | 0.6 g |
| Protein | 1 g | 1.2 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Celery, Milk | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Milbona kruidenboter has 11% fewer calories (650 kcal vs 728 kcal).
- Milbona kruidenboter has 11% less fat (70.6 g vs 79 g).
- Kruidenboter knoflook has 65% less sugar (0.6 g vs 1.7 g).
- Milbona kruidenboter has 36% less salt (0.8 g vs 1.2 g).
- Kruidenboter knoflook is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Milbona kruidenboter lists: Celery, Milk.
Ingredients
Milbona kruidenboter
86% roomboter (melk), water, kruiden (1,6% bieslook, 1,6% peterselie, 0,6% selderij, 0,2% kervell, gedroogde ui, gedroogde knoflook, zout, peperextract, gistextract, smaakversterker, mononatriumglutamaat, conserveermiddel alumsorbaat, verdikkingsmiddel: quarpitmeel, natuurlijk aroma
Kruidenboter knoflook
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Milbona kruidenboter or Kruidenboter knoflook?
Overall, Milbona kruidenboter 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?
Milbona kruidenboter has fewer calories: 650 kcal versus 728 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kruidenboter knoflook has less sugar: 0.6 g versus 1.7 g per 100 g.