Studentenfutter vs Studentenfutter Classic
Overall, Studentenfutter has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Studentenfutter | Studentenfutter Classic |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 483 kcal | 514 kcal |
| Fat | 27.6 g | 35 g |
| Saturated fat | 3.8 g | 4.4 g |
| Sugars | 34.4 g | 32 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 6 g |
| Fiber | 6.5 g | — |
| Protein | 16.2 g | 12 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Nuts, Peanuts | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Studentenfutter has 21% less fat (27.6 g vs 35 g).
- Studentenfutter has 14% less saturated fat (3.8 g vs 4.4 g).
- Studentenfutter has 100% less salt (0 g vs 6 g).
- Studentenfutter has 26% more protein (16.2 g vs 12 g).
- Studentenfutter has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Studentenfutter lists: Nuts, Peanuts.
Ingredients
Studentenfutter
Rosinen 45%, Erdnusskerne geröstet 30%, Cashewkerne 8%, Mandeln 8%, Mandeln blanchiert 8%, Sonnenblumenöl. Kann Spuren von anderen Schalenfrüchten enthalten. Nach dem Öffnen gut verschließen. Trotz mehrfacher Kontrollen können auch bei sorgfältiger Verpackung Fremdkörper (wie Schalenreste u. Ä.) nicht vollkommen vermieden werden. Trocken lagern. Vor Wärme schützen.
Studentenfutter Classic
40 % Rosinen (Rosinen, Sonnenblumenöl), 20% Haselnusskerne, 15 % Walnusskerne, 10% blanchierte Mandeln, 10% Paranusskerne, 5% Cashewkerne
FAQ
Which is healthier: Studentenfutter or Studentenfutter Classic?
Overall, Studentenfutter 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?
Studentenfutter has fewer calories: 483 kcal versus 514 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Studentenfutter Classic has less sugar: 32 g versus 34.4 g per 100 g.