Head-to-Head Analysis

Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base vs Tomato Ketchup

Wondering which one to pick? We analyzed the nutritional profile, ingredients, and vegan status to help you decide.

Top Pick
Package of Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base

Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Tomato Ketchup

Tomato Ketchup

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
166.7 kcal
Energy
125 kcal
16.7g
Sugars
25g
0g
Fat
0g
16.7g
Protein
0g
20.8g
Salt
2.5g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base and Tomato Ketchup side-by-side, the nutritional differences become quite clear. Both products cater to specific dietary needs, but picking the right one depends on whether you are prioritizing weight loss, muscle gain, or clean eating.

Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base is the more energy-dense option here, packing 42 more calories per 100g than Tomato Ketchup. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

In terms of sugar control, Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base takes the lead with only 16.666666666667g of sugar per 100g, whereas Tomato Ketchup contains 25g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base offers a protein boost with 16.666666666667g per 100g, outperforming Tomato Ketchup in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base or Tomato Ketchup?

It depends on your goals. Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base has 166.66666666667 calories, while Tomato Ketchup has 125 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base vegan?

No, Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Superior touch reduced sodium vegetable base and Tomato Ketchup?

There is a difference of 42 calories per 100g between the two products.

Data source: Open Food Facts. Comparisons are generated automatically based on nutritional values per 100g.