Comparison

RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* vs Ras el hanout

Overall, RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge...Ras el hanout
Nutri-Score a e
NOVA group 1 3
Calories 273 kcal 289 kcal
Fat 4.9 g 14.4 g
Saturated fat 2.5 g 5.9 g
Sugars 3.6 g 1 g
Salt 0.1 g 20.9 g
Fiber 27.3 g 30.4 g
Protein 7.5 g 11.6 g
Additives00
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* has 66% less fat (4.9 g vs 14.4 g).
  • RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* has 57% less saturated fat (2.5 g vs 5.9 g).
  • Ras el hanout has 72% less sugar (1 g vs 3.6 g).
  • RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* has 99% less salt (0.1 g vs 20.9 g).
  • Ras el hanout has 10% more fiber (30.4 g vs 27.3 g).
  • Ras el hanout has 35% more protein (11.6 g vs 7.5 g).
  • RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* has the better Nutri-Score.
  • RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g*

Curcuma, cannelle, clou de girofle, fenouil, muscade, poivre noir, gingembre, laurier, piment

Ras el hanout

Especias (cilantro, jengibre, comino, canela, pimentón dulce, hinojo, cayena, pimienta negra, cúrcuma), sal.

FAQ

Which is healthier: RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* or Ras el hanout?

Overall, RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* 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?

RAS EL HANOUT "éco recharge COOK" 35g* has fewer calories: 273 kcal versus 289 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Ras el hanout has less sugar: 1 g versus 3.6 g per 100 g.

More comparisons