Achterham vs Kalkoenfilet
Overall, Achterham has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Achterham | Kalkoenfilet |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 102 kcal | 107 kcal |
| Fat | 2.1 g | 2.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.8 g | 0.9 g |
| Sugars | 0.6 g | 0.7 g |
| Salt | 2.3 g | 5 g |
| Fiber | 0.1 g | 0.3 g |
| Protein | 16 g | 18 g |
| Additives | 8 | 7 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Achterham has 28% less fat (2.1 g vs 2.9 g).
- Achterham has 55% less salt (2.3 g vs 5 g).
- Kalkoenfilet has 11% more protein (18 g vs 16 g).
- Achterham has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Achterham
78% VARKENSVLEES, WATER, ZUURTEREGELAAR (KALIUMACETATEN [E261], KALIUMLACTAAT [E326]), ZOUT, NATUURLIJKE AROMA'S, AARDAPPELZETMEEL, GLUCOSESTROOP, AROMA, DEXTROSE, STABILISATOR (CARRAGEEN [E407], DIFOSFATEN [E450], TRIFOSFATEN (E451), POLYFOSFATEN [E452]), GISTEXTRACT, ANTIOXIDANT (NATRIUMASCORBAAT [E301]), CONSERVEERMIDDEL (NATRIUMNITRIET (E250]), ROOK.
Kalkoenfilet
81% kalkoenvlees, water, zuurteregelaar (E261, E325, E326, E331), zout, dextrose, kaliumchloride (dieetzout), suiker, natuurlijk aroma, antioxidant (E301), stabilisator (E407), conserveermiddel (E250).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Achterham or Kalkoenfilet?
Overall, Achterham 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?
Achterham has fewer calories: 102 kcal versus 107 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Achterham has less sugar: 0.6 g versus 0.7 g per 100 g.