Ryvita Thins Multi-Seed vs Wraps ble complet
Overall, Wraps ble complet has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Ryvita Thins Multi-Seed | Wraps ble complet |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | — |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 433 kcal | 301 kcal |
| Fat | 14.1 g | 7.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 3.3 g | 3.8 g |
| Sugars | 2.9 g | 1.5 g |
| Salt | 1.5 g | — |
| Fiber | 8.1 g | 9.8 g |
| Protein | 16.4 g | 9.7 g |
| Additives | 1 | 9 |
| Allergens | Gluten | Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Wraps ble complet has 31% fewer calories (301 kcal vs 433 kcal).
- Wraps ble complet has 46% less fat (7.6 g vs 14.1 g).
- Ryvita Thins Multi-Seed has 13% less saturated fat (3.3 g vs 3.8 g).
- Wraps ble complet has 48% less sugar (1.5 g vs 2.9 g).
- Wraps ble complet has 17% more fiber (9.8 g vs 8.1 g).
- Ryvita Thins Multi-Seed has 41% more protein (16.4 g vs 9.7 g).
Ingredients
Ryvita Thins Multi-Seed
WHEAT Flour (61%) (WHEAT Flour, Calcium, Niacin, Iron, Thiamin), Mixed Seeds (24%) (Millet Seed, Brown Linseed, Golden Linseed), Wholegrain RYE Flour (10%), Rapeseed Oil, Salt, Flavour Enhancer (Potassium Chloride).
Wraps ble complet
Wholemeal wheat flour, water, vegetable fat, palm oil, stabilisers E 422, E 466, gluten, salt, acidity regulator E 296, emulsifier E 471, raising agents E 500, E 450, preservatives E 281, E 202, flour treatment agent E 920
FAQ
Which is healthier: Ryvita Thins Multi-Seed or Wraps ble complet?
Overall, Wraps ble complet 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?
Wraps ble complet has fewer calories: 301 kcal versus 433 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Wraps ble complet has less sugar: 1.5 g versus 2.9 g per 100 g.