Comparison

2 Pork Ribeye Steaks vs Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler

Overall, Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

Nutrient2 Pork Ribeye SteaksHaché de Jambon - à Pôeler
Nutri-Score d c
NOVA group — 4
Calories 298 kcal 136 kcal
Fat 21.2 g 6.3 g
Saturated fat 8.4 g 2.3 g
Sugars 0.2 g 1.3 g
Salt 0.1 g 1.5 g
Fiber 0 g 0 g
Protein 26.7 g 17 g
Additives02
AllergensNone listedCelery

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler has 54% fewer calories (136 kcal vs 298 kcal).
  • Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler has 70% less fat (6.3 g vs 21.2 g).
  • Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler has 73% less saturated fat (2.3 g vs 8.4 g).
  • 2 Pork Ribeye Steaks has 85% less sugar (0.2 g vs 1.3 g).
  • 2 Pork Ribeye Steaks has 93% less salt (0.1 g vs 1.5 g).
  • 2 Pork Ribeye Steaks has 36% more protein (26.7 g vs 17 g).
  • Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler lists: Celery.

Ingredients

2 Pork Ribeye Steaks

British Gloucester old spot pork rib eye steaks

Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler

Jambon de porc 78%, eau, fécule de manioc, sel, extraits de levure, bouillons (eau, os de porc, viande de porc, plantes aromatiques, épices, _céleri_​, jus concentré de _céleri_), dextrose de maïs, antioxydant : ascorbate de sodium, conservateur: nitrite de sodium.

FAQ

Which is healthier: 2 Pork Ribeye Steaks or Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler?

Overall, Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. We compare Nutri-Score, processing level and seven nutrients per 100 g. Your own needs (for example low sugar or high protein) may make a different choice better for you.

Which has fewer calories?

Haché de Jambon - à Pôeler has fewer calories: 136 kcal versus 298 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

2 Pork Ribeye Steaks has less sugar: 0.2 g versus 1.3 g per 100 g.

More comparisons