Sorbet exotique vs Sorbet aux fruits rouges
Overall, Sorbet exotique has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Sorbet exotique | Sorbet aux fruits rouges |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | c |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 121 kcal | 119 kcal |
| Fat | 0.2 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Sugars | 23 g | 23 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Fiber | 0.9 g | — |
| Protein | 0.6 g | 0.9 g |
| Additives | 1 | 4 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Sorbet exotique has 60% less fat (0.2 g vs 0.5 g).
- Sorbet exotique has no saturated fat, while Sorbet aux fruits rouges has 0.5 g.
- Sorbet exotique has no salt, while Sorbet aux fruits rouges has 0.5 g.
- Sorbet aux fruits rouges has 33% more protein (0.9 g vs 0.6 g).
Ingredients
Sorbet exotique
Purée de fruits exotiques 45% (purée de passion, litchi, ananas, mangue), eau, sucre, sirop de glucose, dextrose, maltodextrine, fibres végétales, colorant : curcumine.
Sorbet aux fruits rouges
Purée de fruits rouges¹ 37% (framboise, cranberry, cassis), sucre, eau, purée de fruits exotiques² 17,9% (fruit de la passion, banane, mangue), fibres de maïs, jus de citron, stabilisants (farine de graines de caroube, pectine), protéine de pomme de terre, mangue, fruit de la passion, cacao, beurre de cacao, émulsifiant (lécithine de tournesol), colorant (curcumine).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Sorbet exotique or Sorbet aux fruits rouges?
Overall, Sorbet exotique 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?
Sorbet aux fruits rouges has fewer calories: 119 kcal versus 121 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Sorbet exotique has less sugar: 23 g versus 23 g per 100 g.