Riced Cauliflower vs F EXCEPTIONAL JALAPEÑO CHILLI JAM Energy 176kJ Eac
Overall, Riced Cauliflower has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 0.
Riced Cauliflower
F EXCEPTIONAL JALAPEÑO CHILLI JAM Energy 176kJ Eac
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Riced Cauliflower | F EXCEPTIONAL JALAPEÑO CHILL... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 20 kcal | 276 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 1.3 g | 49 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 2.6 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 1.3 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Riced Cauliflower has 93% fewer calories (20 kcal vs 276 kcal).
- Riced Cauliflower has no fat, while F EXCEPTIONAL JALAPEÑO CHILLI JAM Energy 176kJ Eac has 0.5 g.
- Riced Cauliflower has 97% less sugar (1.3 g vs 49 g).
- Riced Cauliflower has 81% more fiber (2.6 g vs 0.5 g).
- Riced Cauliflower has 62% more protein (1.3 g vs 0.5 g).
- Riced Cauliflower has the better Nutri-Score.
- Riced Cauliflower is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Riced Cauliflower
CAULIFLOWER, SALT.
F EXCEPTIONAL JALAPEÑO CHILLI JAM Energy 176kJ Eac
Sugar, Glucose Syrup, Water, Red Peppers (11%), White Wine Vinegar, Jalapeño Chillies (5%), Gelling Agent (Pectins), Acidity Regulator (Citric Acid), Rapeseed Oil. Suitable for vegetarians.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Riced Cauliflower or F EXCEPTIONAL JALAPEÑO CHILLI JAM Energy 176kJ Eac?
Overall, Riced Cauliflower 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?
Riced Cauliflower has fewer calories: 20 kcal versus 276 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Riced Cauliflower has less sugar: 1.3 g versus 49 g per 100 g.