Bisque de homard vs Lobster Bisque
Overall, Bisque de homard has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Bisque de homard | Lobster Bisque |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | c |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 47 kcal | 68 kcal |
| Fat | 2.9 g | 4.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.8 g | 2.7 g |
| Sugars | 0.7 g | 2.7 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 0.4 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Protein | 2 g | 1.1 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Crustaceans, Milk | Crustaceans, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Bisque de homard has 31% fewer calories (47 kcal vs 68 kcal).
- Bisque de homard has 34% less fat (2.9 g vs 4.4 g).
- Bisque de homard has 70% less saturated fat (0.8 g vs 2.7 g).
- Bisque de homard has 74% less sugar (0.7 g vs 2.7 g).
- Lobster Bisque has 56% less salt (0.4 g vs 0.9 g).
- Bisque de homard has 45% more protein (2 g vs 1.1 g).
- Lobster Bisque is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Bisque de homard
Eau, 15% coffres de homard américain MSC, 4% purée de tomates double concentrée, amidon modifié de maïs, huile de colza, vin blanc, crème fraiche, sel de Guérande, Cognac, beurre, arôme naturel de crustacés, carottes, oignons, épices, plantes aromatiques, poireaux, protéines de lait.
Lobster Bisque
water, tomatoes, double cream, lobster, langoustines, onions, white wine, cornflour, butter, skimmed milk powder, French brandy, lemon juice, sugar,
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bisque de homard or Lobster Bisque?
Overall, Bisque de homard 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?
Bisque de homard has fewer calories: 47 kcal versus 68 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bisque de homard has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 2.7 g per 100 g.