Comparison
Safran vs Safranfäden
Overall, Safranfäden 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 | Safran | Safranfäden |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | — | 1 |
| Calories | 210 kcal | 352 kcal |
| Fat | 15.5 g | 5.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 9 g | 1.6 g |
| Sugars | 10 g | 42.4 g |
| Salt | 20 g | 0.4 g |
| Fiber | — | 3.9 g |
| Protein | 9 g | 11.4 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
- Safran has 40% fewer calories (210 kcal vs 352 kcal).
- Safranfäden has 62% less fat (5.9 g vs 15.5 g).
- Safranfäden has 82% less saturated fat (1.6 g vs 9 g).
- Safran has 76% less sugar (10 g vs 42.4 g).
- Safranfäden has 98% less salt (0.4 g vs 20 g).
- Safranfäden has 21% more protein (11.4 g vs 9 g).
Ingredients
Safran
Not available.
Safranfäden
Safran
FAQ
Which is healthier: Safran or Safranfäden?
Overall, Safranfäden 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?
Safran has fewer calories: 210 kcal versus 352 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Safran has less sugar: 10 g versus 42.4 g per 100 g.