Porto aguila tawny vs Shaoxing Cooking Wine
Overall, Shaoxing Cooking Wine has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Porto aguila tawny | Shaoxing Cooking Wine |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 35 kcal | 10 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 9.2 g | 0.9 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.6 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | Sulphur dioxide and sulphites | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Shaoxing Cooking Wine has 71% fewer calories (10 kcal vs 35 kcal).
- Shaoxing Cooking Wine has 90% less sugar (0.9 g vs 9.2 g).
- Porto aguila tawny has no salt, while Shaoxing Cooking Wine has 1.5 g.
- Shaoxing Cooking Wine has 100% more protein (0.6 g vs 0 g).
- Shaoxing Cooking Wine is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Porto aguila tawny lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.
Ingredients
Porto aguila tawny
Raisins (SULFITES), álcool d´origine viticole, régulateurs d´acidité (acide tartrique (L(+)-), conservateurs (SULFITES), agents stabilisateurs (acide métatartrique, gomme arabique)
Shaoxing Cooking Wine
Rice Wine 98.5%, Salt
FAQ
Which is healthier: Porto aguila tawny or Shaoxing Cooking Wine?
Overall, Shaoxing Cooking Wine 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?
Shaoxing Cooking Wine has fewer calories: 10 kcal versus 35 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Shaoxing Cooking Wine has less sugar: 0.9 g versus 9.2 g per 100 g.