Traubenzucker Himbeere vs Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker
Overall, Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.
Traubenzucker Himbeere
Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Traubenzucker Himbeere | Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 368 kcal | 387 kcal |
| Fat | 0.9 g | 0.1 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.9 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 89 g | 71.6 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Protein | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Additives | 2 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has 89% less fat (0.1 g vs 0.9 g).
- Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has 89% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 0.9 g).
- Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has 20% less sugar (71.6 g vs 89 g).
Ingredients
Traubenzucker Himbeere
Traubenzucker (89 %), ganz gehärtete pflanzliche Fette (Raps, Kokos, Palm), Säuerungsmittel: Citronensäure, Aromen, Trennmittel: Magnesiumsalze der Speisefettsäuren.
Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker
Glukosesirup, Zucker, Traubenzucker 5%, Säuerungsmittel (Citronensäure, Milchsäure), Orangensaftkonzentrat, Zitronensaftkonzentrat, Vitaminmischung (Vitamin C, Niacin, Vitamin E, Pantothensäure, Riboflavin, Vitamin B6, Thiamin, Folsäure, Vitamin B12), färbender Rote Beetesaft, natürliches Zitronenaroma, natürliches Orangenaroma.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Traubenzucker Himbeere or Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker?
Overall, Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker 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?
Traubenzucker Himbeere has fewer calories: 368 kcal versus 387 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Vitalinos mit Traubenzucker has less sugar: 71.6 g versus 89 g per 100 g.