Tiger Nut Drink vs Bebida de chufa sin lactosa
Overall, Tiger Nut Drink has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 ml
| Nutrient | Tiger Nut Drink | Bebida de chufa sin lactosa |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 49 kcal | 40 kcal |
| Fat | 1.2 g | 2.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.3 g | 0.7 g |
| Sugars | 3 g | 2.3 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 0.5 g | 0.7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 4 |
| Allergens | None listed | Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Bebida de chufa sin lactosa has 19% fewer calories (40 kcal vs 49 kcal).
- Tiger Nut Drink has 52% less fat (1.2 g vs 2.5 g).
- Tiger Nut Drink has 57% less saturated fat (0.3 g vs 0.7 g).
- Bebida de chufa sin lactosa has 23% less sugar (2.3 g vs 3 g).
- Tiger Nut Drink has the better Nutri-Score.
- Tiger Nut Drink is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Bebida de chufa sin lactosa lists: Soybeans.
Ingredients
Tiger Nut Drink
Spring water, Organic rice, Organic tiger nuts (6%), Sea salt.
Bebida de chufa sin lactosa
Agua, chufas, emulgente: ésteres cítricos de mono y diglicéridos de ácidos grasos (E-472c), proteína de soja, estabilizador: carragenatos (E-407), edulcorantes: sucralosa (E-955) y acesulfame (E-950), aromas de limón y canela. (Nota del redactor: Se ha comprobado con el fabricante que el emulgente E-472c es de origen no animal).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Tiger Nut Drink or Bebida de chufa sin lactosa?
Overall, Tiger Nut Drink 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?
Bebida de chufa sin lactosa has fewer calories: 40 kcal versus 49 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bebida de chufa sin lactosa has less sugar: 2.3 g versus 3 g per 100 g.