Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse) vs Confit de Figues
Overall, Confit de Figues has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.
Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse)
Confit de Figues
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Confit de Canard du Sud-Oues... | Confit de Figues |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 262 kcal | 204 kcal |
| Fat | 18 g | 0.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 6.3 g | 0.5 g |
| Sugars | 0.3 g | 49 g |
| Salt | 2 g | 0.1 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | — |
| Protein | 25 g | 0.7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Confit de Figues has 22% fewer calories (204 kcal vs 262 kcal).
- Confit de Figues has 97% less fat (0.5 g vs 18 g).
- Confit de Figues has 92% less saturated fat (0.5 g vs 6.3 g).
- Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse) has 99% less sugar (0.3 g vs 49 g).
- Confit de Figues has 96% less salt (0.1 g vs 2 g).
- Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse) has 97% more protein (25 g vs 0.7 g).
- Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse) is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse)
Cuisse de canard du Sud-Ouest, graisse de canard, sel
Confit de Figues
Figues (43%), sucre, eau, vinaigre, colorants: jus de betterave rouge et camin, épaississant : pectine et alginate de sodium, SANS CONSERVATEUR
FAQ
Which is healthier: Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse) or Confit de Figues?
Overall, Confit de Figues 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?
Confit de Figues has fewer calories: 204 kcal versus 262 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Confit de Canard du Sud-Ouest (1 cuisse) has less sugar: 0.3 g versus 49 g per 100 g.