Bonafont Flavored Water Mango · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Bonafont Flavored Water Mango

Name: Bonafont Flavored Water Mango
Brand: Bonafont
SKU: 0758104003341

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 Bonafont Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

High sugar content (4.75 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as stevia support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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

CategoryBeverages

Label information quality61/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Energy / 100g

19 kcal

Protein / 100g

0 g

Sugar / 100g

4.75 g

Nutrition score65/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Water, sugar, citric acid, natural, identical mango flavoring, potassium sorbate, malic acid, sodium citrate, stevia (11mg/100ml), and polyoimethyl siloxane.

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 65/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 65/100

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

65/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

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

61/100

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

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (4.75 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

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

Similar options worth comparing

Domaine Du Grand Hopital Petillant de pommes

Beverages. Evidence quality: high

67/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageBeverages

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Nutrition profileWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

79/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

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

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

DBK DBK Energy Drink 250 ml

Beverages. Ingredients: Eau gazéifiée, sucre, acide citrique, arome, E331, colorant E150d, conservateur E202, caféine (0.018%), conservateur E211. Evidence quality: medium

51/100

nutrition score

Beverages

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

73/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

51/100

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

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

72/100

Label quality

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

Spit Ball Spit ball

Beverages. Ingredients: $ enceintes et aux personnes sensibles à/ad* eau gazéifiée, sucre, acidifiants: E33Œqgy taurine (0,1%), caféine (0,021 colorant* lateur: E202, vitamines: niacine, acide pantotftet$a{ folique, biotine, B 12 A consorrFc< Plastique et bouchon à - 19781 es pour 100ml: énergie dont acidoq. Evidence quality: high

58/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

77/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

58/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

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

Open Food Facts Domaine De La Côte De l'Ange Chateauneuf-du-Pape

Beverages. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Beverages

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

66/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

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

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

Signal classes

Need attention

High sugar content (4.75 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Non-sugar sweeteners (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as stevia support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (14 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).

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

CategoryBeverages

Label information quality61/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Environmental signal

NOVA groupNOVA 3

Performance

Energy / 100g

19 kcal

Protein / 100g

0 g

Sugar / 100g

4.75 g

Nutrition score65/100 · Grade B

Ingredient-level explanation

Water, sugar, citric acid, natural, identical mango flavoring, potassium sorbate, malic acid, sodium citrate, stevia (11mg/100ml), and polyoimethyl siloxane.

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 65/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Nutrition profile

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 65/100

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

65/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

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

61/100

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

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (4.75 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is only partial (63%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low

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

Similar options worth comparing

Domaine Du Grand Hopital Petillant de pommes

Beverages. Evidence quality: high

67/100

nutrition score

Strong evidence coverageBeverages

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

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

Strongest: Nutrition profileWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

79/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

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

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

DBK DBK Energy Drink 250 ml

Beverages. Ingredients: Eau gazéifiée, sucre, acide citrique, arome, E331, colorant E150d, conservateur E202, caféine (0.018%), conservateur E211. Evidence quality: medium

51/100

nutrition score

Beverages

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

73/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

51/100

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

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

72/100

Label quality

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

Spit Ball Spit ball

58/100

nutrition score

Lower processing burdenStrong evidence coverage

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

77/100

high reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

58/100

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Moderately processed

Moderately processed · Limited estimate

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

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

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

Open Food Facts Domaine De La Côte De l'Ange Chateauneuf-du-Pape

Beverages. Evidence quality: medium. Nutrition score is currently hidden

—

nutrition score

Beverages

Score summary

—

Nutrition score

No reliable assessment

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

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

66/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition profile

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

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

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

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

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

Bonafont Flavored Water Mango

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 65/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Domaine Du Grand Hopital Petillant de pommes

DBK DBK Energy Drink 250 ml

Spit Ball Spit ball

Open Food Facts Domaine De La Côte De l'Ange Chateauneuf-du-Pape

Bonafont Flavored Water Mango

Nutrient profile

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Need attention

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 65/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Domaine Du Grand Hopital Petillant de pommes

DBK DBK Energy Drink 250 ml

Spit Ball Spit ball

Open Food Facts Domaine De La Côte De l'Ange Chateauneuf-du-Pape

What lowers the rating

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Mittesuhkrulised magusained

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Madal kiudainesisaldus ja rafineeritud süsivesikud

Mittesuhkrulised magusained lapse valikus