Search catalog

KitekS Kokteilis no žāvētiem augļiem un riekstiem Kiteks mikslis · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

KitekS Kokteilis no žāvētiem augļiem un riekstiem Kiteks mikslis packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

KitekS Kokteilis no žāvētiem augļiem un riekstiem Kiteks mikslis

Name: KitekS Kokteilis no žāvētiem augļiem un riekstiem Kiteks mikslis
Brand: KitekS
SKU: 4750198002589

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

Nutri-ScoreD

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:59%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Need attention

High sugar content (39.6 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.

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

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

400 kcal

Protein / 100g

8.5 g

Sugar / 100g

39.6 g

Nutrition score49/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality72/100

Data confidence

Quantity150 g

Packagingen:Plastic, PP

OriginsUnited States,Chile,Turkey,Vietnam

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Nutrition score

49/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 49/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Environmental signal

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

NOVA —

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

72/100

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

High sugar content (39.6 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high

Uncertain area

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing ingredient evidence.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, fiber per 100g, ingredients or ingredients, NOVA group, ingredients, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Elovena

Jugu sitruuna

Plant-based. Ingredients: Kaurapohja (vesi, gluteeniton kaura 8%), sokeri, sitruuna 4,2% (tiivisteestä), tärkkelys (peruna, maissi), rapsiöljy, sakeuttamisaineet (pektiini, gellaanikumi), sitruskuitu, perunaproteiini, kalsium, happamuudensäätöaine (natriumsitraatti), väri (beetakaroteeni, paprikaväri), suola, aromit, vitamiinit (B2, B12, D2), hapate. Gluteeniton, maidoton, vegaaninen.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

First Price

Pickled onions

Plant-based. Evidence quality: medium

Nutri-ScoreCPlant-based

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Saarioinen

6412000016389

Plant-based. Ingredients: Sokeri, mansikka, vesi, sakeuttamisaine (E440), happa muudensäätöaine (E 330), säilöntäaine (E 202). 100 g tuotetta sisältää 35 g marjaa.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA4Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Salvest

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Plant-based. Ingredients: Hapukapsas (48%), kartul, porgand, odrakruup, sibul, rapsiöli, sool, suhkur, maitsetaimed, vürtsid.. Evidence quality: high

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA3Well-documented label

high confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Signal classes

Need attention

High sugar content (39.6 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.

What would improve the assessment

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

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (75%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.

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

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

400 kcal

Protein / 100g

8.5 g

Sugar / 100g

39.6 g

Nutrition score49/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality72/100

Data confidence

Quantity150 g

Packagingen:Plastic, PP

OriginsUnited States,Chile,Turkey,Vietnam

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Nutrition score

49/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 49/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Environmental signal

Weakest area

Nutrition profile

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Medium reliability

medium5/5 kontrollitud

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

stats.completeness
Kinnitatud
stats.ingredients
Kinnitatud
attributeGroups.processing
Kinnitatud
stats.additives
Kinnitatud
stats.nutriScoreNote
Kinnitatud

Andmekindlus peegeldab tõenduspõhisust ja andmete täielikkust, mitte toote tervislikkust.

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

49/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

NOVA —

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

Strong

80/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Quite good

72/100

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

High sugar content (39.6 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high

Uncertain area

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
The record is missing an ingredient list.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing ingredient evidence.
Impact: high

KitekS Kokteilis no žāvētiem augļiem un riekstiem Kiteks mikslis

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 49/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

KitekS Kokteilis no žāvētiem augļiem un riekstiem Kiteks mikslis

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 49/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Suhkruga joogid lapse puhul