Pousse de bambou vs H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas)
Overall, Pousse de bambou has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.
Pousse de bambou
H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas)
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Pousse de bambou | H And S Mungbohnensprossen (... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | a |
| NOVA group | 1 | 3 |
| Calories | 23 kcal | 33 kcal |
| Fat | 0.1 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 3.6 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 0.5 g |
| Fiber | — | 1.8 g |
| Protein | 2.1 g | 2 g |
| Additives | 1 | 1 |
| Allergens | None listed | Celery |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pousse de bambou has 30% fewer calories (23 kcal vs 33 kcal).
- Pousse de bambou has 80% less fat (0.1 g vs 0.5 g).
- Pousse de bambou has no sugar, while H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas) has 3.6 g.
- H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas) has 44% less salt (0.5 g vs 0.9 g).
- H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas) has the better Nutri-Score.
- Pousse de bambou is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas) lists: Celery.
Ingredients
Pousse de bambou
pousses de bambou, eau, régulateur d'acidité : acide citrique.
H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas)
pousses de haricots mungo, eau, sucre, sel, acidifiant: E330, antioxydant: E30 Ce produit peut contenir des traces de céleri.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Pousse de bambou or H And S Mungbohnensprossen (natur) (320g Glas)?
Overall, Pousse de bambou 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?
Pousse de bambou has fewer calories: 23 kcal versus 33 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pousse de bambou has less sugar: 0 g versus 3.6 g per 100 g.