Truffeltiramisu vs Kruidnoten
Overall, Kruidnoten has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Truffeltiramisu | Kruidnoten |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 476 kcal | 427 kcal |
| Fat | 20 g | 11 g |
| Saturated fat | 12 g | 5.4 g |
| Sugars | 48 g | 31 g |
| Salt | 0.7 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | — | 1.5 g |
| Protein | 5.4 g | 6.3 g |
| Additives | 5 | 3 |
| Allergens | Gluten, Milk, Soybeans | Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kruidnoten has 10% fewer calories (427 kcal vs 476 kcal).
- Kruidnoten has 45% less fat (11 g vs 20 g).
- Kruidnoten has 55% less saturated fat (5.4 g vs 12 g).
- Kruidnoten has 35% less sugar (31 g vs 48 g).
- Truffeltiramisu has 49% less salt (0.7 g vs 1.5 g).
- Kruidnoten has 14% more protein (6.3 g vs 5.4 g).
- Only Truffeltiramisu lists: Milk, Soybeans.
Ingredients
Truffeltiramisu
Sugar, wheat flour, cocoa butter, whole 19%, milk powder, vegetable oils (palm, rape), glucose syrup, whey powder (milk), cocoa powder 1,9%, spices, raising agents (sodium carbonates, ammonium carbonates, diphosphates), natural flavouring, salt, burnt sugar, emulsifier (lecithins (soya)), colour (ammonia caramel), natural vanilla flavouring, invert sugar syrup.
Kruidnoten
Tarwebloem, suiker, plantaardige olie (palm, raap), glucosestroop, speculaaskruiden, rijsmiddel (E500, E503, E450), zout, gekaramelliseende suiker vollemelkpoeder, invertsuikerstroop
FAQ
Which is healthier: Truffeltiramisu or Kruidnoten?
Overall, Kruidnoten 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?
Kruidnoten has fewer calories: 427 kcal versus 476 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kruidnoten has less sugar: 31 g versus 48 g per 100 g.