Ranch Dressing vs Käse Sahne
Overall, Käse Sahne has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Ranch Dressing | Käse Sahne |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | c |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 433 kcal | 80 kcal |
| Fat | 43.3 g | 5.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 6.7 g | 3.5 g |
| Sugars | 3.3 g | 1.2 g |
| Salt | 2.1 g | 1.1 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0.2 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 2.5 g |
| Additives | 8 | 2 |
| Allergens | Eggs, Milk, Soybeans | Eggs, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Käse Sahne has 82% fewer calories (80 kcal vs 433 kcal).
- Käse Sahne has 87% less fat (5.5 g vs 43.3 g).
- Käse Sahne has 48% less saturated fat (3.5 g vs 6.7 g).
- Käse Sahne has 64% less sugar (1.2 g vs 3.3 g).
- Käse Sahne has 47% less salt (1.1 g vs 2.1 g).
- Käse Sahne has 100% more protein (2.5 g vs 0 g).
- Käse Sahne has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Ranch Dressing lists: Soybeans.
Ingredients
Ranch Dressing
SOYBEAN OIL, WATER, SUGAR, 2% SALT DISTILLED VINEGAR, BUTTERMILK, EGG YOLKS, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, DRIED GARLIC, XANTHAN GUM, DISODIUM PHOSPHATE, MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, DRIED ONION, NATURAL FLAVOR, SPICE, DISODIUM INOSINATE, DISODIUM GUANYLATE, PAPRIKA EXTRACTIVES (COLOR), PHOSPHORIC ACID, SORBIC ACID, CALCIUM DISODIUM EDTA.
Käse Sahne
Wasser, 10% SCHLAGSAHNE, 4,5% KÄSE, modifizierte Stärke, 1,5% EIGELB, Jodsalz (Salz, Kaliumjodat), Aromen (mit MILCH), Zucker, Hefeextrakt, Verdickungsmittel Xanthan.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Ranch Dressing or Käse Sahne?
Overall, Käse Sahne 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?
Käse Sahne has fewer calories: 80 kcal versus 433 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Käse Sahne has less sugar: 1.2 g versus 3.3 g per 100 g.