California saumon et Suhis saumon vs Sushi saumon
Overall, Sushi saumon has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 0.
California saumon et Suhis saumon
Sushi saumon
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | California saumon et Suhis s... | Sushi saumon |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 149 kcal | 148 kcal |
| Fat | 3.9 g | 3.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 0.7 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 6.2 g | 7.1 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Fish, Gluten, Sesame seeds, Soybeans | Fish, Gluten, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Sushi saumon has no salt, while California saumon et Suhis saumon has 0.9 g.
- Sushi saumon has 13% more protein (7.1 g vs 6.2 g).
- Sushi saumon has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only California saumon et Suhis saumon lists: Sesame seeds.
Ingredients
California saumon et Suhis saumon
Riz vinaigré 64,6% (riz, assaisonnement pour sushi (sucre, vinaigre d'alcool (eau, extrait de riz, alcool, extrait de gâteau de saké, vinaigre d'alcool), sel)), _saumon_ Atlantique 22,3%, avocat 3,9%, concombre 3,9%, graines de _sésame_, algue nori
Sushi saumon
Ingrédients riz vinaigré (riz, assaisonnement pour sushi (sucre, vinaigre d'alcool (préparé à partir d'alcool avec riz ef lie de sakė), vinaigre d'alcool, eau, sel), eau), saumon Atlantique 20%/Sauce soja eau, soja 15%. blé, sel, alcool
FAQ
Which is healthier: California saumon et Suhis saumon or Sushi saumon?
Overall, Sushi 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?
Sushi saumon has fewer calories: 148 kcal versus 149 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
California saumon et Suhis saumon has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.