Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio vs Aceto Balsamico Di Modena
Overall, Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio
Aceto Balsamico Di Modena
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Vinaigre balsamique de Modèn... | Aceto Balsamico Di Modena |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | — |
| NOVA group | 2 | 4 |
| Calories | 138 kcal | 157 kcal |
| Fat | 0 g | 9 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 29 g | 19 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 0.7 g | 0 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| Allergens | Sulphur dioxide and sulphites | Sulphur dioxide and sulphites |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio has 12% fewer calories (138 kcal vs 157 kcal).
- Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio has no fat, while Aceto Balsamico Di Modena has 9 g.
- Aceto Balsamico Di Modena has 34% less sugar (19 g vs 29 g).
- Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio has 100% more protein (0.7 g vs 0 g).
- Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio
Vinaigre de vin*, moût de raisin cuit*. *Produits issus de l'Agriculture Biologique.
Aceto Balsamico Di Modena
Aceto di vino, mosto d'uve concentrato, mosto cotto, colorante caramello E 150d.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio or Aceto Balsamico Di Modena?
Overall, Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio 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?
Vinaigre balsamique de Modène IGP bio has fewer calories: 138 kcal versus 157 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Aceto Balsamico Di Modena has less sugar: 19 g versus 29 g per 100 g.