Nata para cocinar vs Nata Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa
Overall, Nata para cocinar has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nata para cocinar
Nata Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Nata para cocinar | Nata Uht Montada Azucarada S... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 164 kcal | 303 kcal |
| Fat | 15 g | 27 g |
| Saturated fat | 9.7 g | 18 g |
| Sugars | 3.9 g | 13 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 2.8 g | 2 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Nata para cocinar has 46% fewer calories (164 kcal vs 303 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 44% less fat (15 g vs 27 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 46% less saturated fat (9.7 g vs 18 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 70% less sugar (3.9 g vs 13 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 29% more protein (2.8 g vs 2 g).
- Only Nata para cocinar lists: Milk.
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 Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Nata para cocinar or Nata Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa?
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 303 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nata para cocinar has less sugar: 3.9 g versus 13 g per 100 g.