Comparison

Carpaccio vs Black Angus Rindercarpaccio

Overall, Carpaccio has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientCarpaccioBlack Angus Rindercarpaccio
Nutri-Score a d
NOVA group — 4
Calories 216 kcal 191 kcal
Fat 16 g 11 g
Saturated fat 2.7 g 3.1 g
Sugars 0.5 g 1.5 g
Salt 0.3 g 2 g
Fiber — 0 g
Protein 18 g 21 g
Additives04
AllergensNone listedMilk

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Black Angus Rindercarpaccio has 12% fewer calories (191 kcal vs 216 kcal).
  • Black Angus Rindercarpaccio has 31% less fat (11 g vs 16 g).
  • Carpaccio has 13% less saturated fat (2.7 g vs 3.1 g).
  • Carpaccio has 67% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.5 g).
  • Carpaccio has 84% less salt (0.3 g vs 2 g).
  • Black Angus Rindercarpaccio has 14% more protein (21 g vs 18 g).
  • Carpaccio has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Black Angus Rindercarpaccio lists: Milk.

Ingredients

Carpaccio

Not available.

Black Angus Rindercarpaccio

82% Rindfleisch gepökelt (96 % Rindfleisch, Speisesalz, Zucker, Dextrose, Säureregulator: Kaliumlactat, Natriumacetat; Antioxidationsmittel: Natriumascorbat; natürliches Aroma, Konservierungsstoff: Natriumnitrit; Starterkulturen, Buchenholzrauch), 9% Olivenöl, 9% Hartkäse gerieben (Kuhmilch, Speisesalz, tierisches Lab). Kann Spuren von Senf und Sellerie enthalten.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Carpaccio or Black Angus Rindercarpaccio?

Overall, Carpaccio 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?

Black Angus Rindercarpaccio has fewer calories: 191 kcal versus 216 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Carpaccio has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons