Tuiles goût paprika vs Solo
Overall, Solo has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 10 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Tuiles goût paprika | Solo |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | a |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 527 kcal | 382 kcal |
| Fat | 30 g | 2.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 2.9 g | 0.4 g |
| Sugars | 3.2 g | 1.2 g |
| Salt | 1.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 2.3 g | 7 g |
| Protein | 4 g | 9.3 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Solo has 27% fewer calories (382 kcal vs 527 kcal).
- Solo has 91% less fat (2.7 g vs 30 g).
- Solo has 86% less saturated fat (0.4 g vs 2.9 g).
- Solo has 63% less sugar (1.2 g vs 3.2 g).
- Solo has 91% less salt (0.1 g vs 1.1 g).
- Solo has 67% more fiber (7 g vs 2.3 g).
- Solo has 57% more protein (9.3 g vs 4 g).
- Solo has the better Nutri-Score.
- Solo is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Tuiles goût paprika
Pomme de terre déshydratée 40 %, huile de tournesol, amidon de pomme de terre, amidon modifié de pomme de terre, sucre, sirop de glucose, sel, oignon en poudre, émulsifiant : E471, piment, ail en poudre, acidifiant : acide citrique, épices (dont paprika 0,02 %), chili en poudre, arôme naturel, extrait de levure, extrait d'épices.
Solo
Maiz* (89,9%) guisantes no pelados* (10%) y tiamina (vitamina B1). Sin gluten. Puede contener trazas de soja, leche y/o frutos de cáscara, "Ingredientes procedentes de agricultura ecológica.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Tuiles goût paprika or Solo?
Overall, Solo 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?
Solo has fewer calories: 382 kcal versus 527 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Solo has less sugar: 1.2 g versus 3.2 g per 100 g.