Bresaola italienne - Aoste vs Bresaola di Tacchino
Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Bresaola italienne - Aoste | Bresaola di Tacchino |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 160 kcal | 189 kcal |
| Fat | 2.6 g | 1.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 0.5 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 2.1 g |
| Salt | 3.6 g | 4.4 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 1.9 g |
| Protein | 34 g | 40 g |
| Additives | 2 | 3 |
| Allergens | Milk | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Bresaola italienne - Aoste has 15% fewer calories (160 kcal vs 189 kcal).
- Bresaola di Tacchino has 38% less fat (1.6 g vs 2.6 g).
- Bresaola italienne - Aoste has 76% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2.1 g).
- Bresaola italienne - Aoste has 18% less salt (3.6 g vs 4.4 g).
- Bresaola di Tacchino has 100% more fiber (1.9 g vs 0 g).
- Bresaola di Tacchino has 15% more protein (40 g vs 34 g).
Ingredients
Bresaola italienne - Aoste
Viande de boeuf origine U.E. ou hors U.E., sel, dextrose, arômes naturels, conservateurs : nitrite de sodium, nitrate de potassium. Présence possible de fruits a coques et de lait.
Bresaola di Tacchino
Petto di tacchino, LATTE scremato in polvere, sale, proteine del LATTE, fibre vegetali (fibra di bamboo, fibra di patata), saccarosio, vino bianco, antiossidante (ascorbato di sodio), aromi naturali, piante aromatiche, conservanti (nitrato di potassio, nitrito di sodio).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Bresaola italienne - Aoste or Bresaola di Tacchino?
Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you. 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?
Bresaola italienne - Aoste has fewer calories: 160 kcal versus 189 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Bresaola italienne - Aoste has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2.1 g per 100 g.