Au Canard vs RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD
Overall, RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 0.
Au Canard
RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Au Canard | RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Mas... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 355 kcal | 378 kcal |
| Fat | 32 g | 34 g |
| Saturated fat | 15 g | 11 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 1 g | 0.9 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 16 g | 18 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD has 27% less saturated fat (11 g vs 15 g).
- RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD has no sugar, while Au Canard has 0.5 g.
- RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD has 11% more protein (18 g vs 16 g).
- RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD has the better Nutri-Score.
- RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Au Canard
Viande de canard origine UE, viande de porc d'origine française, huiles végétales (coprah, colza), peau de canard, ail, arômes naturels, sel, poivre.
RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD
Viande de canard 52% (origine : UE), graisse de canard 21% (origine : UE), maigre de porc (origine : France), viande cuite de cou de canard 16% (origine : UE), sel, poivre.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Au Canard or RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD?
Overall, RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD 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?
Au Canard has fewer calories: 355 kcal versus 378 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
RILLETTES DE CANARD 220G Massif TRAD has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.