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
| Nutrient | Bottarga di muggine | Polpa 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 |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None 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.