Nata para cocinar vs Nata para cocinar
Overall, Nata para cocinar has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Nata para cocinar | Nata para cocinar |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 164 kcal | 187 kcal |
| Fat | 15 g | 18 g |
| Saturated fat | 9.7 g | 13 g |
| Sugars | 3.9 g | 3.6 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 2.8 g | 2.3 g |
| Additives | 3 | 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 12% fewer calories (164 kcal vs 187 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 17% less fat (15 g vs 18 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 25% less saturated fat (9.7 g vs 13 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 18% more protein (2.8 g vs 2.3 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 para cocinar
nata (_leche_), almidón modificado de maíz, emulgente (E471), estabilizantes (E407, E466), corrector de acidez (E331).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Nata para cocinar 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: 164 kcal versus 187 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nata para cocinar has less sugar: 3.6 g versus 3.9 g per 100 g.