Comparison

Weetabix vs Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos

Overall, Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientWeetabixCopos de trigo integral y ar...
Nutri-Score a a
NOVA group 3 3
Calories 354 kcal 373 kcal
Fat 2 g 1.7 g
Saturated fat 0.6 g 0.2 g
Sugars 4.2 g 0.7 g
Salt 0.3 g 0.6 g
Fiber 10 g 4.7 g
Protein 11 g 10.3 g
Additives00
AllergensGlutenGluten, Soybeans

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos has 17% less fat (1.7 g vs 2 g).
  • Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos has 72% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 0.6 g).
  • Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos has 84% less sugar (0.7 g vs 4.2 g).
  • Weetabix has 53% less salt (0.3 g vs 0.6 g).
  • Weetabix has 53% more fiber (10 g vs 4.7 g).
  • Only Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos lists: Soybeans.

Ingredients

Weetabix

Wholegrain Wheat (95%), Malted Barley Extract, Sugar, Salt, Niacin, Iron, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid.

Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos

Cereales [trigo integral 65%, arroz 43%], extracto de malta de cebada, sal. Puede contener trazas de soja, productos lácteos y otros frutos de cáscara.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Weetabix or Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos?

Overall, Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos 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?

Weetabix has fewer calories: 354 kcal versus 373 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Copos de trigo integral y arroz 0% azúcares añadidos has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 4.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons