Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne vs Boudins de saumon
Overall, Boudins de saumon 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 | Boudin aux pommes à l'ancien... | Boudins de saumon |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | c |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 156 kcal | 222 kcal |
| Fat | 9.6 g | 18 g |
| Saturated fat | 4.1 g | 2.4 g |
| Sugars | 5.3 g | 1.2 g |
| Salt | 1.2 g | 1.2 g |
| Fiber | — | 0.6 g |
| Protein | 11 g | 13.8 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Eggs, Fish, Gluten, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne has 30% fewer calories (156 kcal vs 222 kcal).
- Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne has 47% less fat (9.6 g vs 18 g).
- Boudins de saumon has 41% less saturated fat (2.4 g vs 4.1 g).
- Boudins de saumon has 77% less sugar (1.2 g vs 5.3 g).
- Boudins de saumon has 20% more protein (13.8 g vs 11 g).
- Boudins de saumon has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Boudins de saumon lists: Eggs, Fish, Gluten, Milk.
Ingredients
Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne
Not available.
Boudins de saumon
SAUMON Atlantique 47%, eau, huile de colza, SAUMON Atlantique fumé 7% concentré de tomates, épinards, blanc d'OEUF en poudre, protéines de LAIT, sel, farine de BLE, persil, poivre. Boyau collagène. Traces éventuelles de mollusques, crustacés, sésame, soja, moutarde, céleri, fruit à coque, sulfites.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne or Boudins de saumon?
Overall, Boudins de saumon 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?
Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne has fewer calories: 156 kcal versus 222 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Boudins de saumon has less sugar: 1.2 g versus 5.3 g per 100 g.