Comparison
Soßenbinder hell vs Saucenbinder Hell
Overall, Saucenbinder Hell has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Soßenbinder hell | Saucenbinder Hell |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | c |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 369 kcal | 363 kcal |
| Fat | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 26 g | 5.5 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | — |
| Protein | 0.6 g | 0.6 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Saucenbinder Hell has 79% less sugar (5.5 g vs 26 g).
- Saucenbinder Hell has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Soßenbinder hell lists: Milk.
Ingredients
Soßenbinder hell
Kartoffelstärke, _MILCHZUCKER_, Maltodextrin, Reismehl
Saucenbinder Hell
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Soßenbinder hell or Saucenbinder Hell?
Overall, Saucenbinder Hell 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?
Saucenbinder Hell has fewer calories: 363 kcal versus 369 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Saucenbinder Hell has less sugar: 5.5 g versus 26 g per 100 g.