RINGS vs MIDDLE EASTERN CHUTNEY
Nutrition comparison per 100 g serving
Ad 468x60
RINGS wins in 4 out of 10 nutrient categories
RINGS: 4
vs
MIDDLE EASTERN CHUTNEY: 0
(6 ties)
Overview
| Nutrient | RINGS | MIDDLE EASTERN CHUTNEY | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 18 cal | 132 cal | |
| Protein | 0 g | 0 g | Tie |
| Carbs | 7.1 g | 31.6 g | |
| Fat | 0 g | 0 g | Tie |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0 g | Tie |
| Sugar | 0 g | 0 g | Tie |
Vitamins
| Vitamin | RINGS | MIDDLE EASTERN CHUTNEY | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitamin C, total ascorbic acid | 32.1 MG | 18.9 MG |
Minerals
| Mineral | RINGS | MIDDLE EASTERN CHUTNEY | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calcium, Ca | 0 MG | 0 MG | Tie |
| Iron, Fe | 0 MG | 0 MG | Tie |
| Sodium, Na | 964 MG | 0 MG |