Shirataki de Konjac vs Fusilli sans gluten
Overall, Shirataki de Konjac has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 1.
Shirataki de Konjac
Fusilli sans gluten
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Shirataki de Konjac | Fusilli sans gluten |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | b |
| NOVA group | 1 | 4 |
| Calories | 7 kcal | 358 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 1.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0.3 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 3.7 g | 1 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 7 g |
| Additives | 1 | 1 |
| Allergens | Sulphur dioxide and sulphites | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Shirataki de Konjac has 98% fewer calories (7 kcal vs 358 kcal).
- Shirataki de Konjac has no fat, while Fusilli sans gluten has 1.4 g.
- Shirataki de Konjac has no saturated fat, while Fusilli sans gluten has 0.3 g.
- Shirataki de Konjac has no sugar, while Fusilli sans gluten has 0.5 g.
- Shirataki de Konjac has 73% more fiber (3.7 g vs 1 g).
- Fusilli sans gluten has 100% more protein (7 g vs 0 g).
- Shirataki de Konjac has the better Nutri-Score.
- Shirataki de Konjac is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Shirataki de Konjac lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.
Ingredients
Shirataki de Konjac
Eau, farine de konjac 4%, correcteur d'acidité: acide citrique.
Fusilli sans gluten
Farine de maïs blanc 65 %, farine de maïs jaune 29 %, farine de riz 5 %, émulsifiant : E471. Traces de lupin et soja.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Shirataki de Konjac or Fusilli sans gluten?
Overall, Shirataki de Konjac 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?
Shirataki de Konjac has fewer calories: 7 kcal versus 358 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Shirataki de Konjac has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.