Comparison

Pastilles à la mousse d'Islande vs Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron

Overall, Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPastilles à la mousse d'Isla...Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citr...
Nutri-Score e c
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 387 kcal 393 kcal
Fat 0 g 1.3 g
Saturated fat 0 g 1.3 g
Sugars 95 g 0.1 g
Salt 0 g 0 g
Fiber 1 g 1.5 g
Protein 0 g 0 g
Additives25
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Pastilles à la mousse d'Islande has no fat, while Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron has 1.3 g.
  • Pastilles à la mousse d'Islande has no saturated fat, while Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron has 1.3 g.
  • Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron has 100% less sugar (0.1 g vs 95 g).
  • Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron has 32% more fiber (1.5 g vs 1 g).
  • Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Pastilles à la mousse d'Islande

Extrait de lichen d'Islande 2,6mg, sucre, gélifiant: gomme arabique, réglisse 17,8 mg, sirop de sucre caramélisé, gélatine alimentaire, essences d'anis étoilé et de menthe, arômes, et autres excipientes.

Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron

Édulcorants : sorbitols, sucralose, acésulfame K. Arômes : miel-citron, menthol. Antiagglomérant : stéarate de magnésium. Acidifiant : acide citrique.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Pastilles à la mousse d'Islande or Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron?

Overall, Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron 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?

Pastilles à la mousse d'Islande has fewer calories: 387 kcal versus 393 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Fisherman's Friend Miel-Citron has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 95 g per 100 g.

More comparisons