Ricco di natura pesca e avena vs Bebida de zumo de frutas y avena
Overall, Ricco di natura pesca e avena has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 1.
Ricco di natura pesca e avena
Bebida de zumo de frutas y avena
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Ricco di natura pesca e aven... | Bebida de zumo de frutas y a... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 33 kcal | 66 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 1.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 1 g |
| Sugars | 6.6 g | 9 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0.8 g | 0.7 g |
| Protein | 0.5 g | 0.9 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
- Ricco di natura pesca e avena has 50% fewer calories (33 kcal vs 66 kcal).
- Ricco di natura pesca e avena has no fat, while Bebida de zumo de frutas y avena has 1.4 g.
- Ricco di natura pesca e avena has no saturated fat, while Bebida de zumo de frutas y avena has 1 g.
- Ricco di natura pesca e avena has 27% less sugar (6.6 g vs 9 g).
- Bebida de zumo de frutas y avena has 44% more protein (0.9 g vs 0.5 g).
- Ricco di natura pesca e avena has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Ricco di natura pesca e avena
Not available.
Bebida de zumo de frutas y avena
Licuado de avena (43%) (30%), zumo de piña, zumo de uva, puré de Coco (5%), zumo de limón, extracto de alga kombu, fibra, aroma natural.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Ricco di natura pesca e avena or Bebida de zumo de frutas y avena?
Overall, Ricco di natura pesca e avena 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?
Ricco di natura pesca e avena has fewer calories: 33 kcal versus 66 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Ricco di natura pesca e avena has less sugar: 6.6 g versus 9 g per 100 g.