Comparison

Ranch Dressing vs Aceto di mele

Overall, Aceto di mele has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRanch DressingAceto di mele
Nutri-Score d a
NOVA group 4 1
Calories 400 kcal 2 kcal
Fat 43.3 g 0 g
Saturated fat 3.3 g 0 g
Sugars 3.3 g 0 g
Salt 1.9 g 0 g
Fiber 0 g 0 g
Protein 3.3 g 0 g
Additives51
AllergensEggs, Milk, SoybeansSulphur dioxide and sulphites

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

Key differences

  • Aceto di mele has 100% fewer calories (2 kcal vs 400 kcal).
  • Aceto di mele has no fat, while Ranch Dressing has 43.3 g.
  • Aceto di mele has no saturated fat, while Ranch Dressing has 3.3 g.
  • Aceto di mele has no sugar, while Ranch Dressing has 3.3 g.
  • Aceto di mele has 98% less salt (0 g vs 1.9 g).
  • Ranch Dressing has 100% more protein (3.3 g vs 0 g).
  • Aceto di mele has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Aceto di mele is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Ranch Dressing lists: Eggs, Milk, Soybeans.
  • Only Aceto di mele lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.

Ingredients

Ranch Dressing

Nonfat buttermilk (whey, water, skim milk powder, corn starch, tapioca starch, carrageenan, locust bean gum, culture), vegetable oil (canola and/or soybean oil), egg yolk, maltodextrin, less than 2% of: dried garlic, dried onion, distilled vinegar, salt, sugar, green onion, spices, phosphoric acid, corn starch, xanthan gum, guar gum.

Aceto di mele

Sidro di mele*, E224. Contiene Solfiti

FAQ

Which is healthier: Ranch Dressing or Aceto di mele?

Overall, Aceto di mele 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?

Aceto di mele has fewer calories: 2 kcal versus 400 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Aceto di mele has less sugar: 0 g versus 3.3 g per 100 g.

More comparisons