Alaska-Seelachsfilet vs Colin à la bordelaise
Overall, Alaska-Seelachsfilet has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Alaska-Seelachsfilet | Colin à la bordelaise |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | a |
| NOVA group | 1 | 3 |
| Calories | 71 kcal | 157 kcal |
| Fat | 0.8 g | 8.8 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 1.9 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.8 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 0.8 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 16 g | 13 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Fish | Fish, Gluten, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Alaska-Seelachsfilet has 55% fewer calories (71 kcal vs 157 kcal).
- Alaska-Seelachsfilet has 91% less fat (0.8 g vs 8.8 g).
- Alaska-Seelachsfilet has 95% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 1.9 g).
- Alaska-Seelachsfilet has no sugar, while Colin à la bordelaise has 0.8 g.
- Alaska-Seelachsfilet has no salt, while Colin à la bordelaise has 0.8 g.
- Colin à la bordelaise has 100% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Alaska-Seelachsfilet has 19% more protein (16 g vs 13 g).
- Alaska-Seelachsfilet is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Colin à la bordelaise lists: Gluten, Milk.
Ingredients
Alaska-Seelachsfilet
Filets De Colin d'Alaska (Theragra Chalcogramma).
Colin à la bordelaise
_Colin_ d'Alaska 71%, chapelure 8,3% (dont _blé_), huile de colza, eau, jus de citron à base de concentré 2,9%, _beurre_ 2,5%, oignons 2,5%, persil 0,79%, sel, sucre, ail en poudre, paprika
FAQ
Which is healthier: Alaska-Seelachsfilet or Colin à la bordelaise?
Overall, Alaska-Seelachsfilet 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?
Alaska-Seelachsfilet has fewer calories: 71 kcal versus 157 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Alaska-Seelachsfilet has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.8 g per 100 g.