Comparison

NUTROMA koffiemelk romig PET vs ALPRO sojadrink choco

Overall, ALPRO sojadrink choco has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientNUTROMA koffiemelk romig PETALPRO sojadrink choco
Nutri-Score e c
NOVA group — 4
Calories 145 kcal 61 kcal
Fat 8.5 g 1.8 g
Saturated fat 5.5 g 0.4 g
Sugars 9.9 g 7.6 g
Salt 0.4 g 0.1 g
Fiber 0 g 0.9 g
Protein 7.1 g 3.1 g
Additives13
AllergensNone listedSoybeans

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

Key differences

  • ALPRO sojadrink choco has 58% fewer calories (61 kcal vs 145 kcal).
  • ALPRO sojadrink choco has 79% less fat (1.8 g vs 8.5 g).
  • ALPRO sojadrink choco has 93% less saturated fat (0.4 g vs 5.5 g).
  • ALPRO sojadrink choco has 23% less sugar (7.6 g vs 9.9 g).
  • ALPRO sojadrink choco has 100% more fiber (0.9 g vs 0 g).
  • NUTROMA koffiemelk romig PET has 56% more protein (7.1 g vs 3.1 g).
  • ALPRO sojadrink choco has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only ALPRO sojadrink choco lists: Soybeans.

Ingredients

NUTROMA koffiemelk romig PET

Geëvaporeerde volle melk met 8% melkvet, 18% vetvrije melkdroge stof, stabilisator (E339)°

ALPRO sojadrink choco

Sojabasis (water, gepelde sojabonen (7%)), suiker, magere cacao (1,5%), calci - umcarbonaat, stabilisatoren (carrageen, guarpitmeel, xanthaangom), zuurteregelaar (kaliumfosfaten), aroma, zeezout, natuurlijk aroma, vitaminen (B2, D2).

FAQ

Which is healthier: NUTROMA koffiemelk romig PET or ALPRO sojadrink choco?

Overall, ALPRO sojadrink choco 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?

ALPRO sojadrink choco has fewer calories: 61 kcal versus 145 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

ALPRO sojadrink choco has less sugar: 7.6 g versus 9.9 g per 100 g.

More comparisons