Bio Agnolotti vs Agnolotti au chapon
Overall, Agnolotti au chapon has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Bio Agnolotti | Agnolotti au chapon |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | b |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 294 kcal | 231 kcal |
| Fat | 12 g | 6.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 3.2 g | 2.9 g |
| Sugars | 1.9 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 1.2 g | 1 g |
| Protein | 11 g | 17 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | Celery, Eggs, Gluten, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Agnolotti au chapon has 22% fewer calories (231 kcal vs 294 kcal).
- Agnolotti au chapon has 46% less fat (6.5 g vs 12 g).
- Agnolotti au chapon has 74% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.9 g).
- Agnolotti au chapon has 35% more protein (17 g vs 11 g).
- Agnolotti au chapon has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Agnolotti au chapon lists: Celery, Eggs, Gluten, Milk.
Ingredients
Bio Agnolotti
Not available.
Agnolotti au chapon
Farine de _BLÉ_ tendre 28%, viande de chapon 23% (origine : Italie), _ŒUFS_ (poules élevées au sol) 15%, semoule de _BLÉ_ dur 11%, ricotta 7% (_LACTOSÉRUM_, _LAIT_, sel), fromage râpé (_LAIT_, sel, présure, conservateur : lysozyme d'_ŒUF_), eau, légumes en proportions variables (carotte, _CÉLERI_, oignon), Grana Padano AOP (_LAIT_, sel, présure, conservateur : lysozyme d'_ŒUF_), sel, vin blanc, épices, plantes aromatiques, conservateur : acide sorbique, farine de riz.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bio Agnolotti or Agnolotti au chapon?
Overall, Agnolotti au chapon 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?
Agnolotti au chapon has fewer calories: 231 kcal versus 294 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Agnolotti au chapon has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.9 g per 100 g.