Ricciarelli Pistacchio vs Ricciarelli di siena
Overall, Ricciarelli Pistacchio has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Ricciarelli Pistacchio | Ricciarelli di siena |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 476 kcal | 464 kcal |
| Fat | 24 g | 24 g |
| Saturated fat | 2 g | 3.7 g |
| Sugars | 45 g | 51 g |
| Salt | 0.2 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 7.9 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 10 g | 10 g |
| Additives | 3 | 3 |
| Allergens | Nuts | Eggs, Nuts |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Ricciarelli Pistacchio has 46% less saturated fat (2 g vs 3.7 g).
- Ricciarelli Pistacchio has 12% less sugar (45 g vs 51 g).
- Ricciarelli Pistacchio has 100% more fiber (7.9 g vs 0 g).
- Ricciarelli Pistacchio has the better Nutri-Score.
- Ricciarelli di siena is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Ricciarelli di siena lists: Eggs.
Ingredients
Ricciarelli Pistacchio
Zucchero, mandorle 34%, pistacchio tostato 11%, zucchero a velo 7% (zucchero, amido di mais), fibra solubile di dicoria, albume d'uovа fresche pastorizzate da allevamento a terra, aromi, conservante: acido sorbico, agente lievitante: carbonato acido di ammonio, sale. Può contenere frumento, latte, soia e altra frutta a guscio.
Ricciarelli di siena
Mandorle 45%, Zucchero, Albume d'Uovo, Miele, Agente Lievitante (Carbonato acido d'Ammonio), Conservante: Acido Sorbico.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Ricciarelli Pistacchio or Ricciarelli di siena?
Overall, Ricciarelli Pistacchio 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?
Ricciarelli di siena has fewer calories: 464 kcal versus 476 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Ricciarelli Pistacchio has less sugar: 45 g versus 51 g per 100 g.