Reiswaffeln VM Cocos vs Wildheidelbeeren (TK)
Overall, Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Reiswaffeln VM Cocos | Wildheidelbeeren (TK) |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 1 |
| Calories | 513 kcal | 40 kcal |
| Fat | 27 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 17 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 25 g | 7.4 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 3.6 g | 3.2 g |
| Protein | 7.8 g | 0.6 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has 92% fewer calories (40 kcal vs 513 kcal).
- Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has 98% less fat (0.5 g vs 27 g).
- Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has 99% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 17 g).
- Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has 70% less sugar (7.4 g vs 25 g).
- Reiswaffeln VM Cocos has 11% more fiber (3.6 g vs 3.2 g).
- Reiswaffeln VM Cocos has 92% more protein (7.8 g vs 0.6 g).
- Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has the better Nutri-Score.
- Wildheidelbeeren (TK) is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Reiswaffeln VM Cocos lists: Milk.
Ingredients
Reiswaffeln VM Cocos
Vollmilchschokolade* 54 % (Rohrzucker*, Kakaobutter*, VOLLMILCHPULVER* 21 %, Kakaomasse*, Vanilleextrakt*), Vollkornreis* 40 %, Kokosraspeln* 6 % *aus biologischer Landwirtschaft Kann Spuren von Soja, Nüssen und Sesam enthalten.
Wildheidelbeeren (TK)
Heidelbeeren* *aus biologischer Landwirtschaft
FAQ
Which is healthier: Reiswaffeln VM Cocos or Wildheidelbeeren (TK)?
Overall, Wildheidelbeeren (TK) 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?
Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has fewer calories: 40 kcal versus 513 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Wildheidelbeeren (TK) has less sugar: 7.4 g versus 25 g per 100 g.