6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers vs Bacon ahumado con madera de haya
Overall, 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers
Bacon ahumado con madera de haya
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers | Bacon ahumado con madera de... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 237 kcal | 349 kcal |
| Fat | 13 g | 31.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 5.6 g | 12.7 g |
| Sugars | 1.1 g | 1 g |
| Salt | 2.8 g | 2.4 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 28 g | 14.9 g |
| Additives | 0 | 7 |
| Allergens | Pork | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers has 32% fewer calories (237 kcal vs 349 kcal).
- 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers has 59% less fat (13 g vs 31.7 g).
- 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers has 56% less saturated fat (5.6 g vs 12.7 g).
- Bacon ahumado con madera de haya has 15% less salt (2.4 g vs 2.8 g).
- 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers has 47% more protein (28 g vs 14.9 g).
- Only 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers lists: Pork.
Ingredients
6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers
pork (91%), water, salt, natural flavouring, ascorbic acid, smoke flavouring
Bacon ahumado con madera de haya
Bacon de cerdo, sal, dextrosa, estabilizantes (E451, E452), conservadores (E262, E243, E250), extractos de especies, azúcar , antioxidante (E316, E301).
FAQ
Which is healthier: 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers or Bacon ahumado con madera de haya?
Overall, 6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers 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?
6 Smoked Back Bacon Rashers has fewer calories: 237 kcal versus 349 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bacon ahumado con madera de haya has less sugar: 1 g versus 1.1 g per 100 g.