Bio Rinder Rumpsteak vs Bio Kochschinken
Overall, Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 4.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Bio Rinder Rumpsteak | Bio Kochschinken |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | c |
| NOVA group | 1 | 4 |
| Calories | 129 kcal | 101 kcal |
| Fat | 5 g | 1.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 2 g | 0.5 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 1.8 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 21 g | 21.3 g |
| Additives | 0 | 4 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Bio Kochschinken has 22% fewer calories (101 kcal vs 129 kcal).
- Bio Kochschinken has 70% less fat (1.5 g vs 5 g).
- Bio Kochschinken has 75% less saturated fat (0.5 g vs 2 g).
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has no sugar, while Bio Kochschinken has 0.5 g.
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has no salt, while Bio Kochschinken has 1.8 g.
- Bio Kochschinken has 100% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has the better Nutri-Score.
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Bio Rinder Rumpsteak
Rindfleisch
Bio Kochschinken
Schweinefleisch, Dextrose, Antioxidationsmittel: Natriumascorbat, Säureregulator: Trinatriumcitrat, Konservierungsstoff: Natriumnitrit
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bio Rinder Rumpsteak or Bio Kochschinken?
Overall, Bio Rinder Rumpsteak 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 Kochschinken has fewer calories: 101 kcal versus 129 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.