Comparison

Pan Miga Sandwich Dúo vs Pan Pita Blanco

Overall, Pan Pita Blanco has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPan Miga Sandwich DúoPan Pita Blanco
Nutri-Score a —
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 271 kcal 250 kcal
Fat 5.6 g 1.5 g
Saturated fat 1 g —
Sugars 3.3 g 1.9 g
Salt 1 g 0.4 g
Fiber 5.9 g 2.4 g
Protein 11.8 g 8.6 g
Additives64
AllergensGluten, SoybeansGluten

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

Key differences

  • Pan Pita Blanco has 73% less fat (1.5 g vs 5.6 g).
  • Pan Pita Blanco has 42% less sugar (1.9 g vs 3.3 g).
  • Pan Pita Blanco has 55% less salt (0.4 g vs 1 g).
  • Pan Miga Sandwich Dúo has 59% more fiber (5.9 g vs 2.4 g).
  • Pan Miga Sandwich Dúo has 27% more protein (11.8 g vs 8.6 g).
  • Pan Pita Blanco is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Pan Miga Sandwich Dúo lists: Soybeans.

Ingredients

Pan Miga Sandwich Dúo

Mezcla de harinas (harina de trigo integral de grano entero, harina de trigo), agua, gluten, aceite maravilla (tocoferoles como antioxidante), levadura, azúcar, fibra de trigo, emulsionante (E472e), sal, propionato de calcio, conservante (E282), estearoil lactilato de sodio, diacetil tartárico, estearoil lactilato de sodio, ácido sórbico, ácido cítrico, ácido ascórbico. Contiene gluten.

Pan Pita Blanco

Harina de trigo, agua, levadura instantánea, sal, azúcar, ácido cítrico, ácido sórbico, propionato de calcio y ácido láctico.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Pan Miga Sandwich Dúo or Pan Pita Blanco?

Overall, Pan Pita Blanco 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?

Pan Pita Blanco has fewer calories: 250 kcal versus 271 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Pan Pita Blanco has less sugar: 1.9 g versus 3.3 g per 100 g.

More comparisons