Ht Traders Orange Chicken · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Ht Traders Orange Chicken

Name: Ht Traders Orange Chicken
Brand: Ht Traders
SKU: 0072036708601

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Moderate signal

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Ht Traders Suggest correction

Signal classes

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (67 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

119 kcal

Protein / 100g

4.68 g

Sugar / 100g

9.79 g

Nutrition score64/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Rice & vegetables: rice (rice, water), carrots, broccoli, baby cob corn. sauce: sugar, water, soy sauce (water, wheat, soybeans, salt), high fructose corn syrup, orange juice, vinegar, food starch-modified, spices, chili garlic sauce (salted chili pepper, garlic, white sugar, rice vinegar, water, modified corn starch, acetic acid), sesame oil, dried garlic, natural flavor, xanthan gum, orange peel, sorbic acid (preservative), caramel (color). chicken: chicken white meat, water, modified tapioca starch, salt, sodium phosphate.

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 64/100

Quite good

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 57/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

64/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

64/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

l'atelier du cuisinier St Jacques à la Fine Bretagne

Food. Ingredients: Crème, noix de Saint-Jacques 28%, tacaud, vin blanc, oignon, champignons, sel de Millac, eau de vie de cidre 1%, beurre demi-sel, ail, jus de citron concentré, algues [dulse, nori, laitue de mer], persil, laurier, piment fort moulu, épaississant : agar-agar (extrait d'algues).. Evidence quality: high

45/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

85/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

45/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

61/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

NATVIT Pur Jus ARGOUSIER BIO

Food. Ingredients: Jus d' argousier BIO 100%, sans sucre ajouté (issu de l'agriculture biologique).. Evidence quality: high

91/100

nutrition score

Balanced nutritionLower processing burden

Score summary

Nutrition score

Strong

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Strong

91/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Fuxia Lasagne bolognaise 100% pur bœuf origine France

Food. Ingredients: Tomates pelées concassées, viande hachée pur bœuf 14% origine France, pâte à lasagne 10% (semoule de _blé_ dur, _œuf_), _lait_, mozzarella (_lait_), carottes, oignons, _céleri_, fromage râpé (_lait_, sel, présure, conservateur : lyzozyme d'_œuf_), huile d'olive, huile de tournesol, beurre (_lait_), _farine de blé_, vin rouge (_sulfites_), sel, sucre, basilic, poivre, laurier, thym, muscade. Evidence quality: high

55/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

91/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

69/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

GOOD GOUT KIDZ Good gout kidz

Food. Ingredients: 85% anane, eau, jus de citron bio.. Evidence quality: high

65/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

87/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Signal classes

Uncertain or missing data

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (67 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality64/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Performance

Energy / 100g

119 kcal

Protein / 100g

4.68 g

Sugar / 100g

9.79 g

Nutrition score64/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 64/100

Quite good

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 57/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The overall assessment is good, but some areas warrant further review.

Nutrition profile

Quite good

64/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

64/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as karamellvärv, ksantaankummi support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 56%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut share was inferred heuristically.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

l'atelier du cuisinier St Jacques à la Fine Bretagne

45/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

85/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

45/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

61/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

NATVIT Pur Jus ARGOUSIER BIO

Food. Ingredients: Jus d' argousier BIO 100%, sans sucre ajouté (issu de l'agriculture biologique).. Evidence quality: high

91/100

nutrition score

Balanced nutritionLower processing burden

Score summary

Nutrition score

Strong

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

83/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Strong

91/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

86/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Fuxia Lasagne bolognaise 100% pur bœuf origine France

55/100

nutrition score

Well-documented labelStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Processing

Data confidence

91/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

55/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Quite good

69/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

GOOD GOUT KIDZ Good gout kidz

Food. Ingredients: 85% anane, eau, jus de citron bio.. Evidence quality: high

65/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenWell-documented label

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

processing is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: ProcessingWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

87/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

65/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Minimally processed

100

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Ht Traders Orange Chicken

Nutrient profile

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 64/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

l'atelier du cuisinier St Jacques à la Fine Bretagne

NATVIT Pur Jus ARGOUSIER BIO

Fuxia Lasagne bolognaise 100% pur bœuf origine France

GOOD GOUT KIDZ Good gout kidz

Ht Traders Orange Chicken

Nutrient profile

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 64/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

l'atelier du cuisinier St Jacques à la Fine Bretagne

NATVIT Pur Jus ARGOUSIER BIO

Fuxia Lasagne bolognaise 100% pur bœuf origine France

GOOD GOUT KIDZ Good gout kidz

What lowers the rating

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs