Comparison

Tiger vs UHT Cocoa Milkshake

Overall, UHT Cocoa Milkshake has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientTigerUHT Cocoa Milkshake
Nutri-Score — —
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 364 kcal 67 kcal
Fat 4.4 g 1.5 g
Saturated fat 2.8 g 1 g
Sugars 57 g 10.6 g
Salt 0.1 g 0.1 g
Fiber 14 g —
Protein 11 g 2.7 g
Additives03
AllergensNone listedMilk

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • UHT Cocoa Milkshake has 82% fewer calories (67 kcal vs 364 kcal).
  • UHT Cocoa Milkshake has 66% less fat (1.5 g vs 4.4 g).
  • UHT Cocoa Milkshake has 64% less saturated fat (1 g vs 2.8 g).
  • UHT Cocoa Milkshake has 81% less sugar (10.6 g vs 57 g).
  • Tiger has 75% more protein (11 g vs 2.7 g).
  • Tiger is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only UHT Cocoa Milkshake lists: Milk.

Ingredients

Tiger

sucre de canne complet 60%, cacao fortement dégraissé 40%, vanille Bourbon. 100% issu de l'agriculture biologique.

UHT Cocoa Milkshake

LECHE ENTERA, LECHE DESNATADA EN POLVO, LECHE DESNATADA, SUERO LACTEO EN POLVO, AZÚCAR, CACAO DESGRASADO (1,5%). ESTABILIZANTES (E-339, E-407) EMULGENTE (E-471) Y AROMAS *CERTIFICADO RAINFOREST ALLIANCE INGREDIENTS: LLET SENCERA, LLET DESNATADA EN POLS, LLET DESNATADA, SERUM LACTI EN POLS SUCRE, CACAU DESGREIXAT* (1.5%). ESTABILITZADORS (E-339, E-407). EMULGENT (E-471) I AROMES *CERTIFICAT RAINFOREST ALLIANCE INGREDIENTES: LEITE GORDO, LEITE inn Co

FAQ

Which is healthier: Tiger or UHT Cocoa Milkshake?

Overall, UHT Cocoa Milkshake 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?

UHT Cocoa Milkshake has fewer calories: 67 kcal versus 364 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

UHT Cocoa Milkshake has less sugar: 10.6 g versus 57 g per 100 g.

More comparisons