Oat Barista Maple Walnut flavour vs Ekologisk Havredryck Barista
Overall, Ekologisk Havredryck Barista has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.
Oat Barista Maple Walnut flavour
Ekologisk Havredryck Barista
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Oat Barista Maple Walnut fla... | Ekologisk Havredryck Barista |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | c |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 62 kcal | 54 kcal |
| Fat | 3 g | 2 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.3 g | 0.2 g |
| Sugars | 4.5 g | 2.6 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 1.1 g | 0.8 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Gluten | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Ekologisk Havredryck Barista has 13% fewer calories (54 kcal vs 62 kcal).
- Ekologisk Havredryck Barista has 33% less fat (2 g vs 3 g).
- Ekologisk Havredryck Barista has 42% less sugar (2.6 g vs 4.5 g).
- Oat Barista Maple Walnut flavour has 27% more protein (1.1 g vs 0.8 g).
- Ekologisk Havredryck Barista has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Oat Barista Maple Walnut flavour lists: Gluten.
Ingredients
Oat Barista Maple Walnut flavour
Vatten, gluten - fritt havremjöl 10 %, rapsolja, socker, surhetsreglerande medel (kaliumfosfater), kalcium, salt, arom, jod, vitaminer (riboflavin (B2), B12, D2). Passar veganer. Glutenfri OMCKAVAC Räct före se datum på toppen av förpackningen.
Ekologisk Havredryck Barista
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Oat Barista Maple Walnut flavour or Ekologisk Havredryck Barista?
Overall, Ekologisk Havredryck Barista 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?
Ekologisk Havredryck Barista has fewer calories: 54 kcal versus 62 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Ekologisk Havredryck Barista has less sugar: 2.6 g versus 4.5 g per 100 g.