Comparison

Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit vs Limoen & gember puur

Overall, Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPistache cranberry hazelnoot...Limoen & gember puur
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 548 kcal 532 kcal
Fat 35 g 34 g
Saturated fat 16 g 20 g
Sugars 47 g 45 g
Salt 0.4 g 0 g
Fiber 1.8 g 9.2 g
Protein 9.4 g 5.8 g
Additives01
AllergensMilk, Nuts, SoybeansSoybeans

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

Key differences

  • Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has 20% less saturated fat (16 g vs 20 g).
  • Limoen & gember puur has 93% less salt (0 g vs 0.4 g).
  • Limoen & gember puur has 80% more fiber (9.2 g vs 1.8 g).
  • Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has 38% more protein (9.4 g vs 5.8 g).
  • Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit lists: Milk, Nuts.

Ingredients

Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit

Suiker, vollemelk - poeder, cacaoboter, pistachenoot, hazelnoot, 4,2% pistachenootpasta, 4,1% gedroogde cranberry, emul - gator (sojalecithine 522]), zee - zout, natuurlijk van learoma, zonnebloemolie.

Limoen & gember puur

Cacaomassa°, suiker, cacaoboter, glucosestroop, limoensapconcentraat, tapiocazetmeel, emulgator (sojalecithine [E322]), 0,2% limoenschil, gember, natuurlijk vanillearoma, 0,03% limoenolie.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit or Limoen & gember puur?

Overall, Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit 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?

Limoen & gember puur has fewer calories: 532 kcal versus 548 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Limoen & gember puur has less sugar: 45 g versus 47 g per 100 g.

More comparisons