Comparison

Noir 72% Eclats de fèves Piment d'espelette vs Chili Kirsche Schokolade

Overall, Chili Kirsche Schokolade has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientNoir 72% Eclats de fèves Pim...Chili Kirsche Schokolade
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 547 kcal 573 kcal
Fat 42 g 43 g
Saturated fat 27 g 27 g
Sugars 29 g 28 g
Salt 0 g 0 g
Fiber — 11 g
Protein 7.3 g 6.9 g
Additives00
AllergensEggs, Gluten, Milk, Sesame seedsNone listed

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Chili Kirsche Schokolade is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Noir 72% Eclats de fèves Piment d'espelette lists: Eggs, Gluten, Milk, Sesame seeds.

Ingredients

Noir 72% Eclats de fèves Piment d'espelette

CHOCOLAT NOIR 72% ÉCLATS DE ET PIMENT D'ESPELETTE ingrédients : pâte de cacao, beurre de cacao*, sucre de canne*, éclats de fèves de cacao Poudre de piment dEpelette AOP 1%* Cacao : 72% minimum dans le chocolat. Traces possibles de: fruits à coque, gluten, lait, oeuf, sesame.

Chili Kirsche Schokolade

Kakaomasse*, Rohrohrzucker*, Kakaobutter*, Sauerkirschcrisp* 3,5% (Sauerkirschpüree*, Apfelpüreekonzentrat*, Zitronensaftkonzentrat*, Sauerkirschsaftkonzentrat*), Chili* getrocknet 0,5% *aus biologischer Landwirtschaft. Kann Spuren von Gluten, Milch, Mandel, Haselnuss, Pecannuss und Pistazie enthalten.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Noir 72% Eclats de fèves Piment d'espelette or Chili Kirsche Schokolade?

Overall, Chili Kirsche Schokolade 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?

Noir 72% Eclats de fèves Piment d'espelette has fewer calories: 547 kcal versus 573 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Chili Kirsche Schokolade has less sugar: 28 g versus 29 g per 100 g.

More comparisons