Comparison
Sugar snaps vs Zuckerschoten
Overall, Zuckerschoten has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Sugar snaps | Zuckerschoten |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | a |
| NOVA group | 1 | 1 |
| Calories | 26 kcal | 45 kcal |
| Fat | 0.5 g | 0.1 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 2.3 g | 3.1 g |
| Salt | 2.5 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 2.2 g | 3 g |
| Protein | 3.3 g | 5.4 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Sugar snaps has 42% fewer calories (26 kcal vs 45 kcal).
- Zuckerschoten has 80% less fat (0.1 g vs 0.5 g).
- Sugar snaps has 26% less sugar (2.3 g vs 3.1 g).
- Zuckerschoten has no salt, while Sugar snaps has 2.5 g.
- Zuckerschoten has 27% more fiber (3 g vs 2.2 g).
- Zuckerschoten has 39% more protein (5.4 g vs 3.3 g).
- Zuckerschoten has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Sugar snaps
Snap peas.
Zuckerschoten
Zuckerschoten
FAQ
Which is healthier: Sugar snaps or Zuckerschoten?
Overall, Zuckerschoten 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?
Sugar snaps has fewer calories: 26 kcal versus 45 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Sugar snaps has less sugar: 2.3 g versus 3.1 g per 100 g.