Does Yuka use Nutri-Score?
Yuka says its nutritional-quality component is based on the Nutri-Score nutrient-profiling framework, but the final Yuka rating also includes additives and organic certification. The two outputs are not identical measures.
Yuka vs Sláinte: How the Food Scores Are Actually Calculated
Published · Updated · Sláinte Editorial
Two people can scan the same breakfast cereal and get two different numbers.
That doesn't necessarily mean one app has read the packet incorrectly.
Yuka and Sláinte publish different scoring formulas. They may start with the same nutrition declaration and ingredient list, but they put different weight on additives, organic certification, processing and product-category rules.
For food, Yuka says its rating is built from 60% nutritional quality, 30% additives and 10% organic certification.
Sláinte's current published formula is 55% nutrition, 30% ingredients and 15% processing and quality signals, with additional category caps and safeguards.
Those differences matter, but the percentages aren't the whole story. A score also depends on the product record, the precise recipe, the interpretation of an ingredient and special rules that can limit a final rating.
This guide compares the two published systems in detail, without inventing head-to-head scores or claiming that one app wins on Irish product coverage without testing it.
A disclosure before we begin: Sláinte publishes this article and competes with Yuka in parts of the food-scanning market. We link directly to Yuka's methodology and describe its strengths as well as the differences.
First, what does a barcode scanner actually read?
The barcode on a packet is usually a product identifier. It doesn't contain a hidden nutrition table or a secret health rating.
A food-scanning service matches that identifier to a product record, which may include:
- the product and brand name;
- the exact pack variant or flavour;
- nutrition information per 100g or 100ml;
- ingredients, allergens and additives;
- certifications and marketing claims;
- images, category and other record details.
The app then interprets those fields according to its scoring rules.
This means there are two separate questions whenever scores differ:
Are the apps reading the same information? And are they judging that information in the same way?
If one record refers to an older recipe, or the UK version of a product has different ingredients from the Irish pack, the scores are not a controlled comparison of the algorithms.
The fairest method is to confirm the exact barcode, recipe and nutrition declaration first.
The published formulas side by side
Here is the clearest starting point.
| Food-scoring component | Yuka's published method | Sláinte's published method |
|---|---|---|
| Nutritional quality | 60% | 55% |
| Additives | 30% dedicated score component | Considered within 30% ingredients component |
| Other ingredients | Interpreted as relevant to nutritional/additive assessments; no separate 30% general ingredients category described in its three-part formula | 30% ingredients, including declared ingredients, list characteristics and recognised additives |
| Organic certification | 10% dedicated bonus | No separately published automatic 10-point organic bonus |
| Processing / NOVA | No separately weighted NOVA component in Yuka's stated 60/30/10 food formula | 15% processing and quality signals, including NOVA |
| Special limits | Maximum 49/100 where Yuka classifies an additive as high-risk | Category-specific ceilings, sweetener ceiling, and other published caps/floors |
| Final rating | Out of 100 | Out of 100 |
Sources: Yuka's official “How are food products rated?” help page and Sláinte's live food-scoring methodology, reviewed 22 October 2026. These are different systems, not interchangeable percentages. Individual category and additive rules can override a straightforward weighted interpretation.
Neither number is an official European Union health grade. Both are ratings generated by private services according to their respective methodologies.
Why the missing 10% does not go to the same place
It would be a mistake to say that Yuka's 10% organic component has simply been replaced by Sláinte's 15% processing component.
The complete structures differ.
Yuka separates nutrition, additives and certified-organic status. Sláinte separates nutrition, general ingredients and processing/quality signals, while placing recognised additives within ingredients.
The approaches overlap in some of the information they use, but they answer slightly different questions.
How Yuka's food score works
According to Yuka's official help centre, food scores are based on three components.
1. Nutrition quality: 60%
Yuka explains that its nutritional calculation is based on the Nutri-Score nutrient profiling framework.
Relevant variables include energy, sugar, sodium, saturated fat, fibre, protein and fruit-and-vegetable content, according to the applicable method.
That gives the score a nutritional foundation rather than leaving it to a subjective judgement about ingredient names.
A food high in sugar and salt may score less favourably than one with a stronger nutrient profile, even before additives and organic certification are considered.
But the exact conversion from a nutrient profile to a rating out of 100 follows Yuka's own methodology. A Yuka number isn't simply the official Nutri-Score grade copied onto a different scale.
2. Additives: 30%
Yuka assigns additive risk categories informed by its reading of scientific studies and regulatory assessments.
Its published additive guidance describes four levels:
| Yuka additive classification | Published effect in its additive method |
|---|---|
| No risk | No additive penalty |
| Limited risk | 6-point reduction per additive |
| Moderate risk | 15-point reduction per additive |
| High risk | 30-point reduction and a maximum final product score of 49/100 |
These are Yuka's own risk classifications, not universal labels assigned to every E number by an Irish or EU authority.
For example, the presence of a Yuka-classified high-risk additive can impose a cap even where other nutritional characteristics are favourable.
A consumer should be able to inspect which additive was flagged and what scientific sources are cited for that classification. The legal authorisation of an additive and a private app's precautionary risk judgement are related but different questions.
The exact quantity of each additive is usually not disclosed in the product ingredient list, so an app rating cannot necessarily calculate dose-specific exposure from that particular product.
3. Organic certification: 10%
Yuka allocates an organic component to products carrying an accepted official organic certification.
This is a deliberate policy choice in the scoring method.
It does not mean that an organic biscuit contains fewer grams of sugar than an equivalent conventional biscuit, or that organic honey no longer contributes free sugars.
Organic status describes a regulated production system. Nutritional quality describes something else.
Yuka treats certified-organic status as worth additional points as part of its overall philosophy; Sláinte does not publish an identical stand-alone ten-point bonus.
Neither method's weighting is a law of nature. They are published decisions about which product characteristics the apps want their numbers to represent.
How Sláinte's food score works
The current Sláinte methodology also uses a 0 to 100 scale, but divides its assessment into three different components.
1. Nutrition: 55%
Nutrition carries just over half the total weighting.
The method is derived from the 2023 Nutri-Score nutrient profiling approach with published Sláinte modifications and category rules. It considers energy, sugars, saturated fat and salt, alongside fibre, protein and the relevant content of fruit, vegetables and pulses.
These values are primarily based on the nutrition declaration per 100g or per 100ml.
That common basis makes it possible to compare similar products that come in different pack sizes.
But the method also recognises that nutrient profiling needs specific rules for categories such as drinks, fats and oils, and cheese.
2. Ingredients: 30%
Sláinte's second component considers the ingredient list more broadly.
That includes recognised additives and their assessed concern levels, the characteristics of the ingredient list and the presence of other ingredients the current methodology treats as relevant.
This is not a claim that every additive is inherently harmful. Additives are authorised in the EU under specified conditions and can serve important technological purposes.
The useful question is what a particular ingredient does, how it is regulated and how it affects the assessment in the context of the whole product.
Under the live methodology, an ingredient with a high-concern flag can also affect the headline warning shown to the user while leaving the underlying numerical score and band visible.
That differs from Yuka's published rule that an additive it classifies as high risk caps the overall food rating at 49.
3. Processing and quality signals: 15%
The third component includes NOVA, the four-group processing classification, and related formulation signals.
NOVA distinguishes foods that are unprocessed or minimally processed from culinary ingredients, processed foods and ultra-processed formulations.
Sláinte uses that information as a supporting part of the result, rather than treating NOVA Group 4 as a sufficient reason to assign the same score to every product in that group.
A highly formulated high-protein yoghurt and a sugary soft drink may both fall within NOVA Group 4, for example, while having very different nutrient profiles.
This is exactly why Sláinte also assesses nutrition and ingredients.
For a practical NOVA exercise, see NOVA Food Classification: 12 Irish Supermarket Foods Explained.
Why the score caps matter just as much as the percentages
People often compare scoring methods by their headline weights alone.
That misses a crucial point: special rules can change the final result after the main calculation.
Yuka's high-risk additive cap
Yuka states that a product containing an additive it classes as high risk cannot score above 49/100, regardless of how high it might otherwise have rated.
This makes the app's precautionary additive classification influential even when the normal component is described as 30%.
The logic is transparent, although reasonable readers may disagree over particular additive classifications or the evidential basis for them.
Sláinte's category and sweetener caps
Sláinte publishes a different set of rules, including:
- An artificially sweetened product cannot receive a final score above 74/100.
- Fried and extruded savoury snacks cannot score above 49/100.
- Dense sauces, dressings and condiments cannot score above 49/100.
- Dense cakes, pastries, biscuits and confectionery cannot score above 24/100.
- A final score cannot be more than 15 points above the product's nutrition score.
- Certain single-ingredient, additive-free and unprocessed foods have a published minimum-score safeguard.
These are the published rules at the date of this article; see the live methodology for other category rules and subsequent changes.
The purpose is to prevent favourable characteristics in one part of the method from overwhelming an otherwise weak nutrition profile.
The two apps' caps are therefore not directly equivalent. Yuka's highlighted rule concerns an additive class. Sláinte also applies broader product-category limits and other safeguards.
Six situations in which the same food might receive different ratings
The following examples illustrate where the published methodologies could diverge. They are not actual head-to-head scan results and no product score is being predicted.
Scenario 1: Two otherwise similar biscuits, one certified organic
Yuka includes a dedicated organic component, so official organic certification is relevant to its final rating.
Sláinte does not publish the same fixed organic ten-point category. It would assess the product's nutrition, ingredients, processing and the relevant confectionery/biscuit category limit.
The difference illustrates a weighting decision, not proof that one app has made an error.
Scenario 2: A food with an additive Yuka calls high risk
Yuka's published method can restrict the product to a maximum rating of 49.
Sláinte may also flag a concerning ingredient, but its public rules describe a distinct ingredient-warning mechanism and several other score caps.
A direct comparison would require the precise ingredient, its classification under both methods and the current product record.
Scenario 3: A protein bar with substantial fibre and protein
Both systems consider nutritional characteristics, and both may recognise additives.
Sláinte also has an explicitly weighted NOVA/processing component. Yuka's published 60/30/10 split does not separately allocate 15% to NOVA.
Different formula weights could produce different numbers even if both apps read identical nutrition panels.
Scenario 4: A no-added-sugar flavoured yoghurt with sweeteners
A product may have a lower total sugar figure yet contain non-sugar sweeteners and flavourings.
Yuka assesses recognised additives under its classifications. Sláinte evaluates the ingredient list and processing, and its published artificial-sweetener cap limits a qualifying product to 74/100.
The presence and type of sweetener matter. "No added sugar" is not the same as "no additives" or "unprocessed".
Scenario 5: Plain oats with very simple ingredients
Plain oats are a useful example of strong basic ingredients and minimal processing.
Sláinte's live methodology contains a worked example for Flahavan's Organic Porridge Oats, showing a Sláinte Score of 96/100 from the saved product record described on that page.
We are not publishing a Yuka score for those oats, because an equivalent current result from Yuka for the exact barcode has not been verified here.
The example demonstrates how an app can explain its own scoring. It is not a head-to-head win claim.
Scenario 6: A recipe changes but the product looks the same
Imagine a manufacturer reduces sugar, replaces an additive or alters the amount of wholegrain in a cereal.
If one app still has the older record, the two results might diverge even if their underlying scoring methods were identical.
That is a data-quality issue before it is a scoring-philosophy issue.
Always confirm that the ingredients and nutrition in the app match the physical packet.
Does Yuka work in Ireland?
Yes. Yuka's support materials identify Ireland as a supported market.
That is separate from measuring coverage of Irish products.
An app being available in Ireland does not establish that every Dunnes Stores own-label food, regional brand or limited-edition supermarket variant is included or up to date.
Sláinte was built with Irish and UK supermarket shopping in mind. Its relevance to Irish labels and products is a design focus.
However, it would be unfair to claim that Sláinte has proven better Irish barcode coverage than Yuka without testing both against the same fixed sample of products.
Database sizes also change constantly. A quoted total of product records does not tell you what percentage of a particular person's weekly shopping trolley will scan accurately.
Which scanner is more independent?
Yuka explicitly says it does not accept brand payments to influence product ratings or recommendations. Its published independence statement also explains its subscription-funded business model.
Those are relevant strengths and should be acknowledged.
This article does not establish a direct comparison of the two businesses' revenue, governance or independence policies. A methodology comparison cannot, by itself, answer those questions.
What a shopper can test is whether the app identifies the correct product, explains the score and makes any commercial relationships or sponsored placements clear.
What would a fair Irish barcode comparison look like?
A proper Sláinte versus Yuka test should be repeatable.
Here's a practical protocol for a small editorial study. It has not yet been carried out for this article.
- Select a fixed basket of products sold in Ireland. Include Irish brands, UK imports and supermarket own labels.
- Record exact barcodes, weights, flavours, photographs of ingredients and per-100g nutrition.
- Scan each product in both apps on the same day and record whether the exact variant is recognised.
- Separate coverage from data accuracy. An app can identify a barcode but still hold outdated nutrition information.
- Record the displayed scores and explanatory notes, including additive flags and organic or processing details.
- Analyse differences in the context of each published formula; do not treat agreement between apps as proof of healthiness.
- Repeat the process after major app updates or product reformulations, documenting dates and sample size.
A small hand-picked set of products would provide useful examples. It would not justify a claim about the entire Irish food market.
This matters for transparency: we should not present imaginary scan results as if a controlled comparison has already been completed.
Should you use both apps?
You can, particularly if you want different perspectives on a product.
Yuka has a well-established international consumer-scanning experience, a published additive methodology and a dedicated organic component.
Sláinte is built around Irish and UK shopping, publishes its own scoring breakdown and uses processing explicitly within its formula.
For either app, look past the headline score:
- Is the exact product and flavour correct?
- Does the nutrition declaration match the pack?
- Is the ingredient list current?
- Can you see why points were awarded or lost?
- Is missing information made clear?
- Are you comparing foods that genuinely serve similar purposes?
The best scanner for a particular shopper is one that makes their real purchases easier to understand, not one that always produces the number they hoped to see.
Can a food score tell you whether something is safe for you?
Not on its own.
A product scoring well under either methodology may still contain an allergen, be unsuitable for someone with coeliac disease or conflict with a medically advised diet.
Neither Yuka's score nor Sláinte's is a diagnosis or a personalised treatment plan.
Food labels and manufacturer instructions take precedence for allergies and medical restrictions. Consult an appropriately qualified clinician or dietitian where individual dietary needs require it.
Frequently asked questions
What percentage of Yuka's score is nutrition?
Yuka's published food formula allocates 60% to nutritional quality, 30% to additives and 10% to an organic component.
How does Sláinte calculate food scores?
Sláinte publishes 55% nutrition, 30% ingredients and 15% processing and quality signals, followed by relevant category caps and other rules.
Does Yuka reward organic food?
Yes. Yuka has a dedicated 10% organic component for products meeting the certification conditions in its methodology.
Does Sláinte give a ten-point organic bonus?
Not as a separate fixed 10% component in the public 55/30/15 formula. Its processing and ingredients methodology is different from Yuka's structure.
Does Yuka score ultra-processing?
Its published three-part food formula does not list a separately weighted NOVA processing component. That should not be taken to mean processing can never indirectly affect another part of its assessment.
Does Sláinte use NOVA?
Yes. The current published method includes NOVA-related processing within the 15% processing and quality component.
Which app penalises additives more?
There is no reliable universal answer across all products. Yuka has a dedicated 30% additive component and a high-risk cap; Sláinte considers additives within ingredients and has different special rules. The result depends on the specific additive and full product record.
Is Yuka better than Sláinte in Ireland?
That depends on your priorities and the exact products you buy. A verified, same-day test of matching Irish barcodes would be needed to make a defensible claim about coverage or accuracy.
Can Sláinte and Yuka legitimately disagree?
Yes. The scoring weights, ingredient classifications, organic rules and processing treatment differ. Even with the same label information, the resulting numbers need not match.
Can either app replace checking the actual label?
No. For allergies, medical restrictions or uncertain product information, the current physical label and manufacturer guidance are essential.
The short version
- Yuka publishes a 60% nutrition, 30% additives, 10% organic food-scoring formula.
- Sláinte publishes a 55% nutrition, 30% ingredients, 15% processing and quality formula.
- Both generate private scores out of 100, not official Irish or EU health grades.
- Yuka's method includes a high-risk additive cap at 49/100.
- Sláinte publishes sweetener and product-category ceilings alongside other guardrails.
- Sláinte explicitly uses NOVA within its processing component.
- Yuka grants an organic component; Sláinte does not publish an identical automatic 10% organic bonus.
- A rating can differ because of the rules or because the underlying product data differ.
- Yuka is available in Ireland; claims about comparative Irish product coverage require controlled testing.
- Sláinte is publishing this comparison about a competing app, so primary-source links and clear limitations matter.
- Always check the exact barcode, ingredient list and nutrition information before trusting a score.
Sources
- Yuka: How are food products rated? (official help centre)
- Yuka: Additives' evaluation methodology (official help centre)
- Yuka: Independence (official corporate statement)
- Sláinte: live food-scoring methodology
- Sláinte: existing introductory comparison with Yuka
- Sláinte: best food-scanner apps in Ireland
- European Union: Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011
- European Union: Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
Last reviewed: 22 October 2026