Comparison

Ruby Chocolade met wijn smaak vs Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit

Overall, Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRuby Chocolade met wijn smaa...Pistache cranberry hazelnoot...
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 563 kcal 548 kcal
Fat 36.1 g 35 g
Saturated fat 21.8 g 16 g
Sugars 52.2 g 47 g
Salt 0.2 g 0.4 g
Fiber 0.7 g 1.8 g
Protein 6.2 g 9.4 g
Additives20
AllergensMilk, SoybeansMilk, Nuts, Soybeans

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has 27% less saturated fat (16 g vs 21.8 g).
  • Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has 61% more fiber (1.8 g vs 0.7 g).
  • Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has 34% more protein (9.4 g vs 6.2 g).
  • Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit lists: Nuts.

Ingredients

Ruby Chocolade met wijn smaak

suiker, cacaoboter, volle melkpoeder, cacaomassa, voedingszuur: citroenzuur; svärde/ natuurlijk vanillearoma, natuurlijk aroma, emulgator: lecithinen (soja).

Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit

Suiker, vollemelk - poeder, cacaoboter, pistachenoot, hazelnoot, 4,2% pistachenootpasta, 4,1% gedroogde cranberry, emul - gator (sojalecithine 522]), zee - zout, natuurlijk van learoma, zonnebloemolie.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Ruby Chocolade met wijn smaak or Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit?

Overall, Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit 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?

Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has fewer calories: 548 kcal versus 563 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Pistache cranberry hazelnoot wit has less sugar: 47 g versus 52.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons