Bio-Puten Bierschinken vs Sığır Etli Macar Hindi Dilim Salam
Overall, Bio-Puten Bierschinken has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 1.
Bio-Puten Bierschinken
Sığır Etli Macar Hindi Dilim Salam
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Bio-Puten Bierschinken | Sığır Etli Macar Hindi Dilim... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 184 kcal | 334 kcal |
| Fat | 14 g | 29 g |
| Saturated fat | 4.2 g | 13 g |
| Sugars | 0.3 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 2 g | 3.6 g |
| Protein | 15 g | 18 g |
| Additives | 0 | 3 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Bio-Puten Bierschinken has 45% fewer calories (184 kcal vs 334 kcal).
- Bio-Puten Bierschinken has 52% less fat (14 g vs 29 g).
- Bio-Puten Bierschinken has 68% less saturated fat (4.2 g vs 13 g).
- Bio-Puten Bierschinken has 44% less salt (2 g vs 3.6 g).
- Sığır Etli Macar Hindi Dilim Salam has 17% more protein (18 g vs 15 g).
- Bio-Puten Bierschinken has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Bio-Puten Bierschinken
Not available.
Sığır Etli Macar Hindi Dilim Salam
Ingrédients: Viande de dinde, graisse de boeuf, viande de bœuf, sel nitrite (sel, conservateur: E250), épices, poudre végétale (betteraves rouges), dextrose, antioxydants: E301, E392; extraits d' épices, cultures de maturation, fumée. 100g produit élaboré à partir de 86% viande de dinde et 10% viande de bœuf.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bio-Puten Bierschinken or Sığır Etli Macar Hindi Dilim Salam?
Overall, Bio-Puten Bierschinken 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?
Bio-Puten Bierschinken has fewer calories: 184 kcal versus 334 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bio-Puten Bierschinken has less sugar: 0.3 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.