Mini roses des Sables vs Roses des Sables
Overall, Roses des Sables has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.
Mini roses des Sables
Roses des Sables
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Mini roses des Sables | Roses des Sables |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 502 kcal | 506 kcal |
| Fat | 25.9 g | 24.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 16.3 g | 14.4 g |
| Sugars | 45.5 g | 46 g |
| Salt | 0.8 g | 0.6 g |
| Fiber | 1.1 g | — |
| Protein | 6.9 g | 6.4 g |
| Additives | 2 | 3 |
| Allergens | Gluten, Milk, Soybeans | Gluten, Milk, Nuts, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Roses des Sables has 12% less saturated fat (14.4 g vs 16.3 g).
- Only Roses des Sables lists: Nuts.
Ingredients
Mini roses des Sables
Sucre, pétales de maïs 19% (farine de maïs, sucre, sel, extrait de malt d'_orge_, émulsifiant : lécithine de _soja_), beurre de cacao, _lait_ entier en poudre, pâte de cacao, _lactose_, _lactosérum_ en poudre, _lait_ écrémé en poudre, émulsifiant : lécithine de _soja_, sel, arôme.
Roses des Sables
72% couverture de chocolat au lait : sucre, beurre de cacao, _lait_ entier en poudre, pâte de cacao, _lactosérum_, matière grasse de _lait_ anhydre, émulsifiant (lécithine de _soja_), arôme de vanilline; 22% flocons de maïs : farine de maïs, sucre, set et extrait de malt d'_orge_, émulsifiant (E471); 3% _amandes_; 3% Huile de tournesol. CACAO 30% MINIMUM
FAQ
Which is healthier: Mini roses des Sables or Roses des Sables?
Overall, Roses des Sables 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?
Mini roses des Sables has fewer calories: 502 kcal versus 506 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Mini roses des Sables has less sugar: 45.5 g versus 46 g per 100 g.