Soja cuisine semi-épais bio vs Cooking Soya
Overall, Soja cuisine semi-épais bio has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Soja cuisine semi-épais bio | Cooking Soya |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 190 kcal | 142 kcal |
| Fat | 18 g | 14 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.7 g | 1.6 g |
| Sugars | 2.3 g | 1.2 g |
| Salt | 0.2 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 1.4 g | 0.6 g |
| Protein | 3.3 g | 2 g |
| Additives | 3 | 4 |
| Allergens | Soybeans | Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Cooking Soya has 25% fewer calories (142 kcal vs 190 kcal).
- Cooking Soya has 22% less fat (14 g vs 18 g).
- Cooking Soya has 48% less sugar (1.2 g vs 2.3 g).
- Soja cuisine semi-épais bio has 57% more fiber (1.4 g vs 0.6 g).
- Soja cuisine semi-épais bio has 39% more protein (3.3 g vs 2 g).
- Soja cuisine semi-épais bio has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Soja cuisine semi-épais bio
Tonyu* (eau, fèves de soja* décortiquées 6,7%), huile de colza*, sucre de canne*, huile de tournesol* pressée à froid, émulsifiant: lécithines* (soja), stabilisant: gomme guar*, sel marin, antioxydant: extrait riche en tocophérols, *Ingrédients biologiques,
Cooking Soya
Sojabasis (84,4%) (Wasser, geschälte Sojabohnen (5,5%)), Sonnenblumenöl, Zucker, Emulgator (Zuckerester von Speisefettsäuren), Stabilisatoren (Xanthan, Carrageen, Guarkernmehl), Meersalz, Aroma.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Soja cuisine semi-épais bio or Cooking Soya?
Overall, Soja cuisine semi-épais bio 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?
Cooking Soya has fewer calories: 142 kcal versus 190 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Cooking Soya has less sugar: 1.2 g versus 2.3 g per 100 g.