Nata para cocinar vs Nata Cremosa
Overall, Nata para cocinar has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Nata para cocinar | Nata Cremosa |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 164 kcal | 336 kcal |
| Fat | 15 g | 35 g |
| Saturated fat | 9.7 g | 24 g |
| Sugars | 3.9 g | 3 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 2.8 g | 2 g |
| Additives | 3 | 2 |
| 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 51% fewer calories (164 kcal vs 336 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 57% less fat (15 g vs 35 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 60% less saturated fat (9.7 g vs 24 g).
- Nata Cremosa has 23% less sugar (3 g vs 3.9 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 29% more protein (2.8 g vs 2 g).
Ingredients
Nata para cocinar
cow's cream (15% fat), modified starch, emulsifiers (lactic esters of monoglycerides and diglycerides of fatty acids, monoglycerides and diglycerides of fatty acids), stabilizer (carrageenans)
Nata Cremosa
_Natas_ (M.G 35%), (Contém _Leite_) (Origem: Portugal), Emulsionante (E472B) e Estabilizador (E407).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Nata para cocinar or Nata Cremosa?
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: 164 kcal versus 336 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nata Cremosa has less sugar: 3 g versus 3.9 g per 100 g.