Head-to-Head Analysis

Swiss Rolls vs California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium

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

Package of Swiss Rolls

Swiss Rolls

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium

California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
444 kcal
Energy
133.3 kcal
42.9g
Sugars
0g
19g
Fat
10g
3.2g
Protein
0g
0.5g
Salt
0.7g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Swiss Rolls and California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium 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.

Swiss Rolls is the more energy-dense option here, packing 311 more calories per 100g than California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

However, watch out for the sugar content. Swiss Rolls contains significantly more sugar (42.9g) compared to the milder California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Swiss Rolls offers a protein boost with 3.17g per 100g, outperforming California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Swiss Rolls or California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium?

It depends on your goals. Swiss Rolls has 444 calories, while California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium has 133.33333333333 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Swiss Rolls vegan?

No, Swiss Rolls is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Swiss Rolls and California Ripe Pitted Olives Low Sodium Medium?

There is a difference of 311 calories per 100g between the two products.

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