Mix voor kip vs Mix voor kip traditioneel
Overall, Mix voor kip traditioneel has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Mix voor kip | Mix voor kip traditioneel |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 316 kcal | 104 kcal |
| Fat | 10.2 g | 3.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.9 g | 1 g |
| Sugars | 7.7 g | 2.4 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 68.8 g |
| Fiber | 27.4 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 11.4 g | 3.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Celery |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Mix voor kip traditioneel has 67% fewer calories (104 kcal vs 316 kcal).
- Mix voor kip traditioneel has 64% less fat (3.7 g vs 10.2 g).
- Mix voor kip traditioneel has 47% less saturated fat (1 g vs 1.9 g).
- Mix voor kip traditioneel has 69% less sugar (2.4 g vs 7.7 g).
- Mix voor kip has 100% less salt (0.1 g vs 68.8 g).
- Mix voor kip has 100% more fiber (27.4 g vs 0 g).
- Mix voor kip has 69% more protein (11.4 g vs 3.5 g).
- Mix voor kip traditioneel is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Mix voor kip traditioneel lists: Celery.
Ingredients
Mix voor kip
paprika, koriander, zwarte peper, maltodextrine, ui, kurkuma, gember, fenegriek komijn, chilipeper, nootmuskaat, karwij, venkel
Mix voor kip traditioneel
Zout, specerijen (koriander, paprika, peper, gember, foelie, kurkuma, fenegriek, selderijzaad, komijn, kardemom, chilies), ui.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Mix voor kip or Mix voor kip traditioneel?
Overall, Mix voor kip traditioneel 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?
Mix voor kip traditioneel has fewer calories: 104 kcal versus 316 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Mix voor kip traditioneel has less sugar: 2.4 g versus 7.7 g per 100 g.