Reisflocken Zartschmelzend vs Copos de arroz y trigo integral con chocolate
Overall, Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 0.
Reisflocken Zartschmelzend
Copos de arroz y trigo integral con chocolate
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Reisflocken Zartschmelzend | Copos de arroz y trigo integ... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | e |
| NOVA group | 1 | — |
| Calories | 378 kcal | 393 kcal |
| Fat | 0.8 g | 5.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.2 g | 3.4 g |
| Sugars | 0.2 g | 27.9 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 1.3 g |
| Fiber | 1.3 g | — |
| Protein | 8 g | 7.3 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has 86% less fat (0.8 g vs 5.9 g).
- Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has 94% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 3.4 g).
- Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has 99% less sugar (0.2 g vs 27.9 g).
- Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has 99% less salt (0 g vs 1.3 g).
- Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Reisflocken Zartschmelzend
Reismehl*, Vitamin B1.
Copos de arroz y trigo integral con chocolate
Es: arroz (28%), Trigo integral (28%), Azúcar (1500), Cobertura de chocolate con leche (159%) (azúca, manteca de cacaa, leche vitaminasy minerales porn 100 rn 30g rn chocolate con leche, con 8 vitaminas (vit e, b1, b2, b3, b6, b9, b12, b5) y hierro
FAQ
Which is healthier: Reisflocken Zartschmelzend or Copos de arroz y trigo integral con chocolate?
Overall, Reisflocken Zartschmelzend 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?
Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has fewer calories: 378 kcal versus 393 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Reisflocken Zartschmelzend has less sugar: 0.2 g versus 27.9 g per 100 g.