Comparison

Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux vs Havermout Apple & Cinnamon

Overall, Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientMuesli fibres - Son de blé,...Havermout Apple & Cinnamon
Nutri-Score a a
NOVA group 1 1
Calories 344 kcal 367 kcal
Fat 6 g 6.4 g
Saturated fat 0.9 g 1.2 g
Sugars 9 g 8.3 g
Salt 0 g 0 g
Fiber 15 g 10.1 g
Protein 12 g 12.1 g
Additives00
AllergensGluten, AvoineLupin, Milk, Mustard, Nuts, Peanuts, Sesame seeds, Soybeans

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux has 33% more fiber (15 g vs 10.1 g).
  • Only Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux lists: Gluten, Avoine.
  • Only Havermout Apple & Cinnamon lists: Lupin, Milk, Mustard, Nuts, Peanuts, Sesame seeds, Soybeans.

Ingredients

Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux

Flocons d'avoine*, Flocons de seigle*, Son de blé* 12%, Flocons d'orge*, Figues séchées* 7,5% (figues*, farine de riz*), Pruneaux* 7% (pruneaux*, farine de riz*), Graines de tournesol*, Graines de sarrasin*, Fraises lyophilisées*, Cassis lyophilisés*. *Ingrédients biologiques

Havermout Apple & Cinnamon

Flocons d'avoine complète (87,2%), pommes séchées (6%), raisins secs sultana (5%), cannelle de Ceylan (1,8%).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux or Havermout Apple & Cinnamon?

Overall, Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux 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?

Muesli fibres - Son de blé, Figues, Pruneaux has fewer calories: 344 kcal versus 367 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Havermout Apple & Cinnamon has less sugar: 8.3 g versus 9 g per 100 g.

More comparisons