Comparison

Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut vs Scottish porridge oats

Overall, Scottish porridge oats has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPorage Oats Original Traditi...Scottish porridge oats
Nutri-Score b a
NOVA group 1 —
Calories 272 kcal 375 kcal
Fat 7.7 g 7.8 g
Saturated fat 3.5 g 1.4 g
Sugars 0.4 g 1.1 g
Salt 0.3 g 0 g
Fiber 3.6 g 9.3 g
Protein 13 g 11 g
Additives00
AllergensNone listedGluten

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

Key differences

  • Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut has 27% fewer calories (272 kcal vs 375 kcal).
  • Scottish porridge oats has 60% less saturated fat (1.4 g vs 3.5 g).
  • Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut has 64% less sugar (0.4 g vs 1.1 g).
  • Scottish porridge oats has 61% more fiber (9.3 g vs 3.6 g).
  • Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut has 15% more protein (13 g vs 11 g).
  • Scottish porridge oats has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Scottish porridge oats lists: Gluten.

Ingredients

Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut

100% Rolled Oats

Scottish porridge oats

Wholegrain Scottish Oat Flakes. Allergy Advice! for allergens, including cereals containing gluten, see ingredients in bold. Not suitable for wheat and barley allergy sufferers. As a guide, we recommend this product provides.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut or Scottish porridge oats?

Overall, Scottish porridge oats 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?

Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut has fewer calories: 272 kcal versus 375 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Porage Oats Original Traditional Smooth Cut has less sugar: 0.4 g versus 1.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons