Comparison

Chorizo FORT vs Viande 100% jambon Chorizo

Overall, Viande 100% jambon Chorizo has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientChorizo FORTViande 100% jambon Chorizo
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 371 kcal 228 kcal
Fat 31 g 4 g
Saturated fat 11 g 1.7 g
Sugars 0.5 g 2.6 g
Salt 3.4 g 3.4 g
Fiber 1.3 g —
Protein 22 g 44 g
Additives32
AllergensMilkMilk

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

Key differences

  • Viande 100% jambon Chorizo has 39% fewer calories (228 kcal vs 371 kcal).
  • Viande 100% jambon Chorizo has 87% less fat (4 g vs 31 g).
  • Viande 100% jambon Chorizo has 85% less saturated fat (1.7 g vs 11 g).
  • Chorizo FORT has 81% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2.6 g).
  • Viande 100% jambon Chorizo has 50% more protein (44 g vs 22 g).

Ingredients

Chorizo FORT

Viande de porc, sel, piment d'Espagne 1,15%, piment de Cayenne 0,95%, dextrose, ail, antioxydant : ascorbate de sodium, noix de muscade, conservateurs : nitrate de potassium et nitrite de sodium, origan, ferments. 134g de viande de porc mis en oeuvre pour 100g de produit fini. Viande de porc origine Espagne. Peut contenir des traces de fruits à coque et œuf.

Viande 100% jambon Chorizo

Jambon de porc, LAIT écrémé en poudre, sel, stabilisant (lactate de potassium), lactose (LAIT), paprika, arômes, ail, sucre, antioxydant (ascorbate de sodium) et conservateur nitrite de sodium).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Chorizo FORT or Viande 100% jambon Chorizo?

Overall, Viande 100% jambon Chorizo 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?

Viande 100% jambon Chorizo has fewer calories: 228 kcal versus 371 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Chorizo FORT has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2.6 g per 100 g.

More comparisons