Nata Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa 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.
Nata Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa
Nata para cocinar
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Nata Uht Montada Azucarada S... | Nata para cocinar |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 303 kcal | 187 kcal |
| Fat | 27 g | 18 g |
| Saturated fat | 18 g | 13 g |
| Sugars | 13 g | 3.6 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 2 g | 2.3 g |
| Additives | 0 | 4 |
| Allergens | None listed | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Nata para cocinar has 38% fewer calories (187 kcal vs 303 kcal).
- Nata para cocinar has 33% less fat (18 g vs 27 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 28% less saturated fat (13 g vs 18 g).
- Nata para cocinar has 72% less sugar (3.6 g vs 13 g).
- Only Nata para cocinar lists: Milk.
Ingredients
Nata Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa
Not available.
Nata para cocinar
nata (_leche_), almidón modificado de maíz, emulgente (E471), estabilizantes (E407, E466), corrector de acidez (E331).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Nata Uht Montada Azucarada Sin Lactosa 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 303 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nata para cocinar has less sugar: 3.6 g versus 13 g per 100 g.