Search catalog

Goodio Chocolate topped with Gingerbread crumble · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:High signal

Goodio Chocolate topped with Gingerbread crumble

Name: Goodio Chocolate topped with Gingerbread crumble
Brand: Goodio
SKU: 6430049210728

The nutrient profile is weak based on the available evidence.

Nutri-ScoreENOVA3

Lisaained:0 lisaainet

Andmete katvus:69%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sugar content (34 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
High saturated fat (23 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (28 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score C supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

493 kcal

Protein / 100g

6 g

Sugar / 100g

34 g

Nutrition score27/100 · Grade E

Ingredient-level explanation

Cacao beans, Coconut palm sugar, Cacao butter, Coconut flakes, Gingerbread (Coconut palm sugar, Corn flour, Oat flour, Coconut flakes, Cacao butter, Water Raising agent, Cinnamon, Ginger, Clove, Cardamom). May contain traces of: _nuts_ (_cashew_)

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality68/100

Data confidence

Quantity48 g

OriginsFinnland,Nicht-Europäische Union

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

27/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 27/100

Weak

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

Strongest area

Label quality

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 profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

68/100

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 C supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (34 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High saturated fat (23 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 78%.
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: fiber per 100g and 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

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sugar content (34 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
High saturated fat (23 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

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 3 anchors the processing indicator.
A long ingredient list (28 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Supporting factors

Declared Eco-Score C supports the environmental indicator.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Energy / 100g

493 kcal

Protein / 100g

6 g

Sugar / 100g

34 g

Nutrition score27/100 · Grade E

Ingredient-level explanation

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality68/100

Data confidence

Quantity48 g

OriginsFinnland,Nicht-Europäische Union

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Highly processed

Formulation complexity

Nutrition score

27/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 27/100

Weak

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

Strongest area

Label quality

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 profile is on the weaker side and warrants attention.

Nutrition profile

Weak

27/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

60/100

Product-specific environmental signal.

Label quality

Quite good

68/100

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 C supports the environmental indicator.
Impact: high
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium
Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (67%) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (34 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 3 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
High saturated fat (23 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 78%.
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: fiber per 100g and front image. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Goodio Chocolate topped with Gingerbread crumble

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 27/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Goodio Chocolate topped with Gingerbread crumble

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

Supporting factors

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 27/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Kõrge küllastunud rasva sisaldus

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Suhkruga joogid lapse puhul

Kõrge küllastunud rasva taustsignaal