Comparison

Profruit 500G TOURNESOL GRILLES SALES vs Pipas

Overall, Pipas has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientProfruit 500G TOURNESOL GRIL...Pipas
Nutri-Score e d
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 582 kcal 263 kcal
Fat 50 g 22 g
Saturated fat 5.2 g 2.4 g
Sugars 2.7 g 0.8 g
Salt 8 g 2.7 g
Fiber 0 g 3.8 g
Protein 19 g 13 g
Additives03
AllergensNone listedMilk

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

Key differences

  • Pipas has 55% fewer calories (263 kcal vs 582 kcal).
  • Pipas has 56% less fat (22 g vs 50 g).
  • Pipas has 54% less saturated fat (2.4 g vs 5.2 g).
  • Pipas has 70% less sugar (0.8 g vs 2.7 g).
  • Pipas has 66% less salt (2.7 g vs 8 g).
  • Pipas has 100% more fiber (3.8 g vs 0 g).
  • Profruit 500G TOURNESOL GRILLES SALES has 32% more protein (19 g vs 13 g).
  • Pipas has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Profruit 500G TOURNESOL GRILLES SALES is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Pipas lists: Milk.

Ingredients

Profruit 500G TOURNESOL GRILLES SALES

Tournesol (88%), sel (10%), farine de riz trace D'ARACHIDE, de SESAME et de FRUITS A COQUES possibles

Pipas

Semillas de girasol, sal, azúcar, aroma (_lactosa_), aroma de humo, levadura en polvo, _lactosa_, potenciadores del sabor (glutamato de monosodio, 5'ribonucleotidos de disodio), maltodextrina, levadura inactiva, ajo en polvo, pimiento jalapeño en polvo, colorantes (caramelo natural, extracto de pimentón), extracto de especias.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Profruit 500G TOURNESOL GRILLES SALES or Pipas?

Overall, Pipas 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?

Pipas has fewer calories: 263 kcal versus 582 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Pipas has less sugar: 0.8 g versus 2.7 g per 100 g.

More comparisons