Comparison

Bottarga di muggine vs Polpa di riccio di mare

Overall, Polpa di riccio di mare has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientBottarga di mugginePolpa di riccio di mare
Nutri-Score e c
NOVA group — —
Calories 427 kcal 103 kcal
Fat 27 g 5.1 g
Saturated fat 6.9 g 2.6 g
Sugars 0 g 0.7 g
Salt 4 g 0.9 g
Fiber 0 g —
Protein 43 g 9.7 g
Additives00
AllergensNone listedNone listed

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Polpa di riccio di mare has 76% fewer calories (103 kcal vs 427 kcal).
  • Polpa di riccio di mare has 81% less fat (5.1 g vs 27 g).
  • Polpa di riccio di mare has 62% less saturated fat (2.6 g vs 6.9 g).
  • Bottarga di muggine has no sugar, while Polpa di riccio di mare has 0.7 g.
  • Polpa di riccio di mare has 78% less salt (0.9 g vs 4 g).
  • Bottarga di muggine has 77% more protein (43 g vs 9.7 g).
  • Polpa di riccio di mare has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Bottarga di muggine

Not available.

Polpa di riccio di mare

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Bottarga di muggine or Polpa di riccio di mare?

Overall, Polpa di riccio di mare 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?

Polpa di riccio di mare has fewer calories: 103 kcal versus 427 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Bottarga di muggine has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.7 g per 100 g.

More comparisons