Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes vs Acerola Bio Saft
Overall, Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 1.
Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes
Acerola Bio Saft
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Co... | Acerola Bio Saft |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | a |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 6 kcal | 18 kcal |
| Fat | — | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0.3 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Additives | 8 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes has 67% fewer calories (6 kcal vs 18 kcal).
- Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes has no sugar, while Acerola Bio Saft has 0.5 g.
- Acerola Bio Saft has 100% more protein (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Only Acerola Bio Saft lists: None.
Ingredients
Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes
Édulcorant : sorbitol ; acidifiant : acide citrique ; minéral:oxyde de magnésium ; correcteur d'acidité : bicarbonate de sodium ; arôme naturel d'orange : : polyéthylène glycol: support édulcorant : saccharine ; vitamine B6 : vitamine B2; vitamine B1:édulcorants: acésulfame de potassium, glycosides de stéviol.
Acerola Bio Saft
Suc d'acérola (Malpighia glabra / fruits) tiré des fruits frais issus de l'agriculture biologique.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes or Acerola Bio Saft?
Overall, Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes 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?
Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes has fewer calories: 6 kcal versus 18 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Vitarmonyl Magnesium 2X12 Comprimes has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.