Pretzel Braids Maui Monk vs Couronne de Sils
Overall, Couronne de Sils has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Pretzel Braids Maui Monk | Couronne de Sils |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 429 kcal | 274 kcal |
| Fat | 14.3 g | 3.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 3.5 g |
| Salt | 2.7 g | 1.9 g |
| Fiber | 7.1 g | 3 g |
| Protein | 7.1 g | 10 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | Gluten, Milk | Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Couronne de Sils has 36% fewer calories (274 kcal vs 429 kcal).
- Couronne de Sils has 76% less fat (3.5 g vs 14.3 g).
- Pretzel Braids Maui Monk has no sugar, while Couronne de Sils has 3.5 g.
- Couronne de Sils has 29% less salt (1.9 g vs 2.7 g).
- Pretzel Braids Maui Monk has 58% more fiber (7.1 g vs 3 g).
- Couronne de Sils has 29% more protein (10 g vs 7.1 g).
- Only Pretzel Braids Maui Monk lists: Milk.
Ingredients
Pretzel Braids Maui Monk
Enriched Wheat Flour, Canola Oil, Maui Monk Seasoning, Sea Salt, Malt Tapioca Blend, Vegan Butter, Malted Barley Flour.
Couronne de Sils
Farine de blé*, eau, levure, huile de tournesol, protéine de blé, sel de cuisine iodé, sucre, farine de malt d'orge, correcteur d'acidité: hydroxyde de sodium, agent de traitement de la farine: acide ascorbique. * de qualité ip-suisse peut contenir fruits à coque, sésame, soja, œufs, lait.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Pretzel Braids Maui Monk or Couronne de Sils?
Overall, Couronne de Sils 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?
Couronne de Sils has fewer calories: 274 kcal versus 429 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pretzel Braids Maui Monk has less sugar: 0 g versus 3.5 g per 100 g.