Bio Rinder Rumpsteak vs Schinken Würfel
Overall, Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Bio Rinder Rumpsteak | Schinken Würfel |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | e |
| NOVA group | 1 | 4 |
| Calories | 129 kcal | 246 kcal |
| Fat | 5 g | 18 g |
| Saturated fat | 2 g | 8 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.9 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 4.5 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 21 g | 20 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 Rinder Rumpsteak has 48% fewer calories (129 kcal vs 246 kcal).
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has 72% less fat (5 g vs 18 g).
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has 75% less saturated fat (2 g vs 8 g).
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has no sugar, while Schinken Würfel has 0.9 g.
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has no salt, while Schinken Würfel has 4.5 g.
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has the better Nutri-Score.
- Bio Rinder Rumpsteak is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Bio Rinder Rumpsteak
Rindfleisch
Schinken Würfel
Schweinefleisch, jodiertes Speisesalz (Speisesalz, Kaliumjodat), Säureregulator (Kaliumlactat), Dextrose, Stabilisator (Diphosphate). Antioxidationsmittel (Natriumascorbat), Gewürzextrakte, Gewürze, Konservierungsstoffe (Natriumnitrit, Kaliumsorbat), Reifekulturen, Rauch. StallhaltungPlus haltungsform.de EINE MARKE VON REWE Haltungs - form 2
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bio Rinder Rumpsteak or Schinken Würfel?
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 Rinder Rumpsteak has fewer calories: 129 kcal versus 246 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bio Rinder Rumpsteak has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.9 g per 100 g.