Velouté de balsamique framboise vs Balsamico
Overall, Velouté de balsamique framboise has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Velouté de balsamique frambo... | Balsamico |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | 4 | 2 |
| Calories | 199 kcal | 293 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 31.4 g | 61 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | — |
| Protein | 1.1 g | 1.1 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Sulphur dioxide and sulphites | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Velouté de balsamique framboise has 32% fewer calories (199 kcal vs 293 kcal).
- Velouté de balsamique framboise has 49% less sugar (31.4 g vs 61 g).
- Balsamico is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Velouté de balsamique framboise lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.
Ingredients
Velouté de balsamique framboise
60% Aceto Balsamico di Modena IGP (vinaigre de vin (contient sulfites), moût de raisin cuit (contient sulfites, moût de raisin concentré (contient sulfites)), moût de raisin cuit (contient sulfites), sirop de glucose, 6% jus de framboise (à base de concentré), amidon modifié (mais), arôme naturel.
Balsamico
"Aceto Balsamico di Modena 1.G.P." 60% (Weinessig¹, konzentrierter Traubenmost gekochter Traubenmost¹, Maisstärke¹ aus kontrolliert biologischem Anbau.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Velouté de balsamique framboise or Balsamico?
Overall, Velouté de balsamique framboise 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?
Velouté de balsamique framboise has fewer calories: 199 kcal versus 293 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Velouté de balsamique framboise has less sugar: 31.4 g versus 61 g per 100 g.