Search catalog

go active Musli · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

go active Musli

Name: go active Musli
Brand: go active
SKU: 5907437368107

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

Nutri-ScoreCNOVA1

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:74%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (11 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (30 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score E supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

456 kcal

Protein / 100g

17 g

Sugar / 100g

4.7 g

Nutrition score67/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

45 % płatki zbożowe (owsiane pełnoziarniste, pszenne pełnoziarniste), 10% połówki prażonych orzeszków ziemnych, 10 % orzechy (połówki prażonych orzechów laskowych, 4% migdały, 2 % orzechy nerkowca), Quinoa (ekspando - wane ziarna komosy ryżowej), ziarna słonecznika, 5 % pestki dyni, kawałki suszonych jabłek, 4% siemię lniane, 3 % nasiona chia [nasiona szałwii hiszpańskiej (Salvia hispanica)], 2% kawa rozpuszczalna. Produkt może zawierać inne orzechy, soję, mleko oraz nasiona sezamu. Wartość odżywcza

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality71/100

Data confidence

Quantity200 g

PackagingPlastic

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Minimally processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

67/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 67/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Environmental signal

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

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Minimally processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Very weak

15/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

71/100

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

Declared Eco-Score E supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (11 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (30 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 78%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: front image. 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

Supporting factors

Fiber (11 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Supporting factors

Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.

Need attention

A long ingredient list (30 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score E supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

456 kcal

Protein / 100g

17 g

Sugar / 100g

4.7 g

Nutrition score67/100 · Grade C

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality71/100

Data confidence

Quantity200 g

PackagingPlastic

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Minimally processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

67/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 67/100

Quite good

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

Strongest area

Processing

Weakest area

Environmental signal

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

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Minimally processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Very weak

15/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

71/100

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

Declared Eco-Score E supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 1 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Fiber (11 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

A long ingredient list (30 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 78%.
Impact: medium
Image evidence covers about 0% of the key fields.
Impact: low
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

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

go active Musli

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 67/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

go active Musli

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Supporting factors

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 67/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid