Mini Cookies Chocolate vs Roses des sables Chocolat au lait
Overall, Roses des sables Chocolat au lait has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 1.
Mini Cookies Chocolate
Roses des sables Chocolat au lait
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Mini Cookies Chocolate | Roses des sables Chocolat au... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | e |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 504 kcal | 485 kcal |
| Fat | 25.8 g | 22 g |
| Saturated fat | 14.2 g | 14 g |
| Sugars | 32.8 g | 33 g |
| Salt | — | 1.2 g |
| Fiber | 4 g | 2.9 g |
| Protein | 6.1 g | 7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | Gluten, Milk, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Roses des sables Chocolat au lait has 15% less fat (22 g vs 25.8 g).
- Mini Cookies Chocolate has 28% more fiber (4 g vs 2.9 g).
- Roses des sables Chocolat au lait has 13% more protein (7 g vs 6.1 g).
- Only Roses des sables Chocolat au lait lists: Gluten, Milk, Soybeans.
Ingredients
Mini Cookies Chocolate
LODL Nährwe Energie/Ener Fett Matières von gesit - 170487381-
Roses des sables Chocolat au lait
Chocolat au lait 61% (sucre, beurre de cacao, poudre de lait entier, pâte de cacao, émulsifiant : lécithine de soja, arôme naturel de vanille, sel), pétales de mais mais, sel, extrait de malt d'orge. émulsifiant : lecithines (tournesol). Peut contenir des traces de fruits à coque et œuf.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Mini Cookies Chocolate or Roses des sables Chocolat au lait?
Overall, Roses des sables Chocolat au lait 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?
Roses des sables Chocolat au lait has fewer calories: 485 kcal versus 504 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Mini Cookies Chocolate has less sugar: 32.8 g versus 33 g per 100 g.