Comparison

Pasta de curry amarillo vs Thai Curry Paste

Overall, Pasta de curry amarillo has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPasta de curry amarilloThai Curry Paste
Nutri-Score d e
NOVA group — 3
Calories 90 kcal 251 kcal
Fat 0.8 g 16 g
Saturated fat 0.3 g 2.4 g
Sugars 8.1 g 3.7 g
Salt 3.1 g 10.7 g
Protein 3.2 g 3.8 g
Additives01
AllergensNone listedCrustaceans, Sojabohnenol

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

Key differences

  • Pasta de curry amarillo has 64% fewer calories (90 kcal vs 251 kcal).
  • Pasta de curry amarillo has 95% less fat (0.8 g vs 16 g).
  • Pasta de curry amarillo has 88% less saturated fat (0.3 g vs 2.4 g).
  • Thai Curry Paste has 54% less sugar (3.7 g vs 8.1 g).
  • Pasta de curry amarillo has 72% less salt (3.1 g vs 10.7 g).
  • Thai Curry Paste has 16% more protein (3.8 g vs 3.2 g).
  • Pasta de curry amarillo has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Thai Curry Paste lists: Crustaceans, Sojabohnenol.

Ingredients

Pasta de curry amarillo

Not available.

Thai Curry Paste

Zitronengras, Knoblauch, _Sojabohnenol_, Schalotten, Salz, getrocknete rote Chili (6%), Koriander, Currypulver (Koriander, Kurkuma, Kreuzkümmel, Gewürznelke, Sternanis, Ingwer, Zimt, Muskatblüte, Karadamom, Muskatnuss), Ingwer, Galgant, Kurkuma, Kaffirlimettenschale, Kreuzkümmel, Shrimpspaste (_Shrimp_, Salz), Kurkumapulver, Säureregulator: Citronensäure

FAQ

Which is healthier: Pasta de curry amarillo or Thai Curry Paste?

Overall, Pasta de curry amarillo 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?

Pasta de curry amarillo has fewer calories: 90 kcal versus 251 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Thai Curry Paste has less sugar: 3.7 g versus 8.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons