Pistachio Milk Nutrition Facts Per Cup: What US Brands Actually Publish (2026)

A cup of pistachio milk runs from 80 to 100 calories across the US brands that publish a figure. That is the easy part, and it is most of what you will find written down. The panels underneath those calories diverge far more than the shelf suggests, and when we checked on 14 August 2026, most of them were not published online at all.

So we compiled the ones that are. Below is every Nutrition Facts value the leading US pistachio milks declare on the open web, per cup as printed and normalized per 100 ml so the cartons can be compared to each other and to European labels. A gap in the table means we could not find the brand publishing that value, and we say where we looked.

Pistachio milk nutrition facts per cup

Values as published on 14 August 2026, sourced individually below. The Táche Original Blend row carries a labeling discrepancy we explain further down, so read it with that in mind.

The same calories, opposite composition

Three Trees Organic Unsweetened and Elmhurst Barista Edition both declare 100 calories a cup. Almost nothing else about them matches.

Three Trees gets there on 8 g of fat and 4 g of carbohydrate. Its ingredients are filtered water, organic pistachios, organic almonds and French grey salt, so the calories are nut fat. Elmhurst Barista Edition gets to the same 100 on 4.5 g of fat and 13 g of carbohydrate, because the second ingredient after pistachio milk is rice. A barista formula wants sugars for steaming and foam, and rice supplies them.

If you are counting calories, the two cartons are interchangeable. If you are watching carbs, eating keto, or buying pistachio milk for the nut fat, they are not close. Calories alone cannot tell you which one you are holding, which is the argument for reading the whole panel rather than the front of the box. Our pistachio milk calories page covers the calorie question on its own, and is pistachio keto covers the carbohydrate side.

Per 100 ml, for comparison

US labels declare per cup and European labels declare per 100 ml, so the two are hard to read against each other. We converted every published value using each product's own stated serving volume. These figures are our arithmetic, not the brands'.

One detail this exposes: the cartons do not agree on what a cup is. Three Trees declares 237 ml, Elmhurst and the Táche listing declare 240 ml. The gap is small, about 1.3%, but it is enough to shift a per-100-ml conversion, and anyone recalculating these figures should use each product's own serving volume rather than a single assumed cup.

The purest carton has the least calcium

This is the finding we did not expect. Three Trees Organic Unsweetened, the product on this page with the shortest and cleanest ingredient list, declares 45 mg of calcium per cup, 4% of the Daily Value. The fortified Táche listing, whose ingredients include calcium carbonate and tricalcium phosphate, declares 280 mg, or 20%. Six times as much.

Pistachios are not a calcium-rich nut to begin with, and diluting them into a drink does not change that. The calcium figure on a plant-milk label therefore reflects a decision the brand made in the factory. A shopper reaching for the purest carton on the shelf is choosing, without being told, the one that will do least for their calcium intake. Neither choice is wrong. But the front of the pack does not say which one you are making. There is more on the mineral picture in pistachio milk calcium, and on where the protein comes from in pistachio milk protein.

One retailer listing contradicts itself

A national retailer sells a product it titles "Tache Pistachio Milk Original Blend Unsweetened." The Nutrition Facts panel on that listing declares 7 g of total sugars, of which 6 g are added, and the ingredient list includes cane sugar in third position.

Those two things cannot both be true of an unsweetened product. Táche does sell an Unsweetened Barista carton, and its ingredient list, published by a coffee-trade retailer, runs "Water, Pistachio, Contains 2% or Less of: Gum Acacia, Gellan Gum, Dipotassium Phosphate, Natural Flavors, Sea Salt." No cane sugar. The panel on the first listing appears to belong to Táche's sweetened Original Blend, sold under a title carrying the word Unsweetened.

We have not established which side of that is the error, and we are not suggesting the brand put it there. Retailer listings are frequently assembled from supplier feeds and go stale. That is precisely why we flag it: a shopper filtering for unsweetened, and any nutrition database scraping that page, would both come away with 6 g of added sugars attached to the wrong carton. We have kept the row in the table and in the dataset, labeled, rather than quietly dropping it.

What the brands do not publish

Of the six products here, one publishes a complete Nutrition Facts panel as readable text on the open web, and it took a retailer listing to find it rather than the brand's own site.

• Elmhurst publishes calories and protein for its Unsweetened milk and shows the rest of the panel as an image. We checked its retail site and its wholesale site; both do the same. Its Barista Edition page is more forthcoming, giving fat, sodium, carbohydrate and sugars, but still no saturated fat, fiber, added sugars or calcium.
• Táche publishes no Nutrition Facts panel at all on its own product page.
• WholeMoon publishes its ingredient list as text and its panel only as a PNG.

An image is not nothing. A shopper can read it, and a brand that prints its label online has disclosed the number. But an image cannot be searched, cannot be compared across products without transcription, and cannot be read by the tools people increasingly use to answer exactly these questions. In a category selling at two to five times the price of almond milk, per our label study, the numbers are harder to get at than they should be. That study covers price and ingredient disclosure; this page covers the panel.

Methodology, limitations and corrections

We compiled this on 14 August 2026 from brand product pages and retailer listings, fetching each source directly rather than relying on search results or nutrition aggregators for any published figure. Every value in the tables traces to a source listed above. The dataset, including the per-100-ml conversions and a source URL and check date on every row, is downloadable as a CSV file.

We included pistachio milks sold in the US, with pistachio as the headline ingredient, and a public product page we could link to. Pistachio creamers are a separate category, covered on the creamer hub. The 137 Degrees pistachio line, included in our label study, is left out here because we found no published US panel for it.

The limits are worth stating plainly. This is a desk study of published label data; we did not lab-test anything, so we can only report what brands declare. "Not published" means we did not find the value on the sources we checked, and a figure may well appear on the physical carton or on a retailer we did not reach. The per-100-ml column is our own arithmetic from each product's stated serving, and US labeling rounding rules mean small values carry real uncertainty once divided. The Three Trees panel is the one we hold with most confidence, because two independent sources agree on it: the current retailer listing and the USDA FoodData Central Branded Foods entry, which records 99 kcal, 8 g fat, 51 mg sodium, 4 g carbohydrate and 4 g protein per 241 g. Those two do differ on the ingredient list, the USDA entry naming almond extract and pink Himalayan salt where the current listing names French grey salt, which reads like a reformulation between the two dates.

Products reformulate constantly in this niche. If you are a brand and a figure here is out of date, or you would like your full panel published as text, we will update this page and say so. The contact route is on our about page. Corrections are logged in the version history below.

Citing this page

You are welcome to cite or reproduce these tables and the dataset, including for commercial publication, with attribution to pistachiomilk.org and a link to this page (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0). A suggested citation:

Ricci, E. (2026). Pistachio Milk Nutrition Facts Per Cup: What US Brands Actually Publish. pistachiomilk.org. https://pistachiomilk.org/pistachio-milk-nutrition-facts/

Journalists and researchers who need a figure checked or the data in another format can get in touch via the about page.

Version history: v1.0, published 14 August 2026 (initial compilation: 6 products, 5 brands, panels as published on that date). Corrections and data updates will be listed here.

Allergy note

Pistachios are a tree nut, and every product on this page is unsuitable for anyone with a tree nut allergy. Two of them blend in almonds as well. This page reports published label data as general information, not personalized dietary advice. Check the current carton before you rely on any figure here.