Nata para cocinar vs Elmlea Double
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 ml
| Nutrient | Nata para cocinar | Elmlea Double |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 189 kcal | 295 kcal |
| Fat | 18 g | 31 g |
| Saturated fat | 12.2 g | 22 g |
| Sugars | 3.7 g | 3 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 2.4 g | 1.8 g |
| Additives | 0 | 7 |
| Allergens | Milk | Milk, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Nata para cocinar has 36% fewer calories (189 kcal vs 295 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 42% less fat (18 g vs 31 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 45% less saturated fat (12.2 g vs 22 g).
- Elmlea Double has 19% less sugar (3 g vs 3.7 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 25% more protein (2.4 g vs 1.8 g).
- Only Elmlea Double lists: Soybeans.
Ingredients
Nata para cocinar
light milk cream, natural starch, milk proteins,
Elmlea Double
buttermilk 69%, vegetable oils (coconut, rapeseed), lactose, emulsifiers (soya lecithin, sucrose esters of fatty acids), stabilizers (xanthan gum, locust bean gum, carrageenan), colour (carotenes).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Nata para cocinar or Elmlea Double?
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: 189 kcal versus 295 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Elmlea Double has less sugar: 3 g versus 3.7 g per 100 g.