Search catalog

Coop Choco pillows · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Nutrition snapshot

Nutrition interpretation:Moderate signal

Coop Choco pillows

Name: Coop Choco pillows
Brand: Coop
SKU: 7340191160255

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

Nutri-ScoreDNOVA4

Lisaained:2 tk

Andmete katvus:77%

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives

Signal classes

Supporting factors

Fiber (5.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sugar content (28 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (30 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

459 kcal

Protein / 100g

6.9 g

Sugar / 100g

28 g

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

DE HAFER - UND WEIZENKISSEN MIT KAKAO - UND HASELNUSSCREME. ZUTATEN: Zucker, Vollkornhafermehl 19 %, Weizenmehl 16 %, Rapsöl, Reismehl, Haselnusspaste 4 %, Weizenkleie 3%, Maisstärke, Maltodextrin, fettarmes Kakaopulver* 1,5 %, Farbstoff (E 160a), Salz, Emulgator (E 322), natürliches Aroma. Kann Spuren von Roggen, Gerste, Soja, Milch, Mandeln, Walnüssen, Cashewkernen, Pekannüssen, Paranüssen, Pistazien und Macadamianüssen enthalten.

Tuvastatud lisaained (2)

E160A E322

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality79/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Nutrition score

51/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 51/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

High reliability

high5/5 kontrollitud

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

51/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

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 broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Fiber (5.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (28 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

Some source data is incomplete for this product: quantity. 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 (5.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.

Need attention

High sugar content (28 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (30 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

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

459 kcal

Protein / 100g

6.9 g

Sugar / 100g

28 g

Nutrition score51/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Tuvastatud lisaained (2)

E160A E322

Product & Packaging

CategoryPlant-based

Label information quality79/100

Data confidence

Processing & Formulation

Processing

Very highly processed

Formulation complexity

NOVA groupNOVA 4

Nutrition score

51/100

0–24

25–44

45–59

60–74

75–100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 51/100

Mixed

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

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

High reliability

high5/5 kontrollitud

The data is strong and the assessment carries high 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

51/100

Nutrition score based on nutrient profile only.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Quite good

72/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

79/100

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

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Fiber (5.1 g/100 g) supports the nutrition score.
Impact: medium
Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

High sugar content (28 g/100 g) weakens the nutrition score.
Impact: high
Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Record completeness is 67%.
Impact: medium
Added sugars are unavailable, so sugar handling relies conservatively on total sugars.
Impact: low

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

Coop Choco pillows

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 51/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Coop Choco pillows

Similar options worth comparing

Jugu sitruuna

Pickled onions

6412000016389

Sauerkraut soup vegan

Nutrient profile

Supporting factors

Need attention

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Nutrition

Product & Packaging

Processing & Formulation

Nutrition score 51/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Environmental Impact

What lowers the rating

Kõrge vabade suhkrute sisaldus

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Suhkruga joogid lapse puhul

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs