Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne vs Kalbs Cipollata
Overall, Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Boudin aux pommes à l'ancien... | Kalbs Cipollata |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 156 kcal | 192 kcal |
| Fat | 9.6 g | 15 g |
| Saturated fat | 4.1 g | 5.9 g |
| Sugars | 5.3 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 1.2 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | — | 1.4 g |
| Protein | 11 g | 13 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
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 19% fewer calories (156 kcal vs 192 kcal).
- Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne has 36% less fat (9.6 g vs 15 g).
- Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne has 31% less saturated fat (4.1 g vs 5.9 g).
- Kalbs Cipollata has 91% less sugar (0.5 g vs 5.3 g).
- Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne has 20% less salt (1.2 g vs 1.5 g).
- Kalbs Cipollata has 15% more protein (13 g vs 11 g).
Ingredients
Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne
Not available.
Kalbs Cipollata
41% viande de veau, eau, viande de porc, lard, sel de cuis dextrose, sirop de glucose, stabilisants: diphosphates, acétates de sol épices, extraits d'épices. Enveloppe: boyau de mouton. Informati consommateur: la date limite de consommation ne peut être g une température de +5°C max. est maintenue pendant la conservativ transport.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne or Kalbs Cipollata?
Overall, Boudin aux pommes à l'ancienne 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 192 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kalbs Cipollata has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 5.3 g per 100 g.