Comparison
Woudhoning vs Waldhonig
Overall, Woudhoning has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Woudhoning | Waldhonig |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | — | 2 |
| Calories | 306 kcal | 326 kcal |
| Fat | 0.1 g | 0 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 69.8 g | 79.8 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | 0.1 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 0.4 g | 0.6 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Woudhoning has 13% less sugar (69.8 g vs 79.8 g).
- Woudhoning has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Woudhoning
Honing (honingdauwhoning),
Waldhonig
Bio Waldhonig
FAQ
Which is healthier: Woudhoning or Waldhonig?
Overall, Woudhoning 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?
Woudhoning has fewer calories: 306 kcal versus 326 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Woudhoning has less sugar: 69.8 g versus 79.8 g per 100 g.