Comparison

Pruneaux enrobés de chocolat vs Szilvás Betyár

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

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPruneaux enrobés de chocolatSzilvás Betyár
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 395 kcal 365 kcal
Fat 18.6 g 12.8 g
Saturated fat 11.2 g 7.3 g
Sugars 45.8 g 39.5 g
Salt 1 g 0 g
Fiber 10.3 g 5.9 g
Protein 4.2 g 2.5 g
Additives01
AllergensEggs, Gluten, Milk, SoybeansMilk, Soybeans

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

Key differences

  • Szilvás Betyár has 31% less fat (12.8 g vs 18.6 g).
  • Szilvás Betyár has 35% less saturated fat (7.3 g vs 11.2 g).
  • Szilvás Betyár has 14% less sugar (39.5 g vs 45.8 g).
  • Szilvás Betyár has 98% less salt (0 g vs 1 g).
  • Pruneaux enrobés de chocolat has 43% more fiber (10.3 g vs 5.9 g).
  • Pruneaux enrobés de chocolat has 40% more protein (4.2 g vs 2.5 g).
  • Pruneaux enrobés de chocolat is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Pruneaux enrobés de chocolat lists: Eggs, Gluten.

Ingredients

Pruneaux enrobés de chocolat

pruneaux*, chocolat noir de couverture* (58 % cacao minimum) (fèves de cacao*, sucre de canne*, beurre de cacao*, poudre de vanille*) Peut contenir des traces de _fruits à coque_, _gluten_, _soja_, _lait_, _œuf_

Szilvás Betyár

Aszalt szilva 51%, cukor, kakaómassza 10%, kakaóvaj, bor 3%, _vaj_, rum, glükózszirup, fahéj, emulgeálószer: _szójalecitin_, tartósítószer: kálium-szorbát, aroma: vanília

FAQ

Which is healthier: Pruneaux enrobés de chocolat or Szilvás Betyár?

Overall, Szilvás Betyár 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?

Szilvás Betyár has fewer calories: 365 kcal versus 395 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Szilvás Betyár has less sugar: 39.5 g versus 45.8 g per 100 g.

More comparisons