Comparison

Atún Gran Sabor Isabel vs Filetes de caballa del sur

Overall, Filetes de caballa del sur has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientAtún Gran Sabor IsabelFiletes de caballa del sur
Nutri-Score d b
NOVA group 3 —
Calories 450 kcal 177 kcal
Fat 42 g 8.5 g
Saturated fat 4.6 g 2.4 g
Sugars 0 g 0.1 g
Salt 0.8 g 1 g
Fiber 0 g —
Protein 18 g 25 g
Additives00
AllergensFishFish

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

Key differences

  • Filetes de caballa del sur has 61% fewer calories (177 kcal vs 450 kcal).
  • Filetes de caballa del sur has 80% less fat (8.5 g vs 42 g).
  • Filetes de caballa del sur has 48% less saturated fat (2.4 g vs 4.6 g).
  • Filetes de caballa del sur has 28% more protein (25 g vs 18 g).
  • Filetes de caballa del sur has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Atún Gran Sabor Isabel

Skipjack tuna*, sunflower oil, salt. *Euthynnus (Katsuwonus) pelamis

Filetes de caballa del sur

Є Caballa del sur (pescado) (72%), aceite de oliva (27%) y sal. GRASAS/ ℗ Cavala (peixe) (72%), azeite (27%) e sal. Importado por: Mercadona, S.A. C/ Valencia, 5. 46016 Tavernes Blanques Valencia (España-Espanha) por 100 g VALOR EN de las c dos qua PRATOS Gelos c dos qua Fabricado por: Soc. N. Aveiro Maroc, S.A. Rue Atlas, Zone Industrielle Aït Melloul, BP 117, Agadir (Marruecos - Marrocos) Acuerdo n°: MA 1653 PROTEÍNA SAL PESO NETO PESO LÍQUIL 2x1

FAQ

Which is healthier: Atún Gran Sabor Isabel or Filetes de caballa del sur?

Overall, Filetes de caballa del sur 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?

Filetes de caballa del sur has fewer calories: 177 kcal versus 450 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Atún Gran Sabor Isabel has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons