Nata Cremosa vs Nata para cocinar
Overall, Nata para cocinar has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Nata Cremosa | Nata para cocinar |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 336 kcal | 187 kcal |
| Fat | 35 g | 18 g |
| Saturated fat | 24 g | 13 g |
| Sugars | 3 g | 3.6 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 2 g | 2.3 g |
| Additives | 2 | 4 |
| Allergens | Milk | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Nata para cocinar has 44% fewer calories (187 kcal vs 336 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 49% less fat (18 g vs 35 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 46% less saturated fat (13 g vs 24 g).
- Nata Cremosa has 17% less sugar (3 g vs 3.6 g).
Ingredients
Nata Cremosa
_Natas_ (M.G 35%), (Contém _Leite_) (Origem: Portugal), Emulsionante (E472B) e Estabilizador (E407).
Nata para cocinar
nata (_leche_), almidón modificado de maíz, emulgente (E471), estabilizantes (E407, E466), corrector de acidez (E331).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Nata Cremosa or Nata para cocinar?
Overall, Nata para cocinar 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?
Nata para cocinar has fewer calories: 187 kcal versus 336 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nata Cremosa has less sugar: 3 g versus 3.6 g per 100 g.