Delikatess Hinterschinken vs Delikatess Putenbrust - Classic
Overall, Delikatess Hinterschinken has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Delikatess Hinterschinken
Delikatess Putenbrust - Classic
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Delikatess Hinterschinken | Delikatess Putenbrust - Clas... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 109 kcal | 102 kcal |
| Fat | 3 g | 1.2 g |
| Saturated fat | 1 g | 0.6 g |
| Sugars | 0.4 g | 0.6 g |
| Salt | 1.7 g | 2.3 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 19.8 g | 21.6 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Delikatess Putenbrust - Classic has 60% less fat (1.2 g vs 3 g).
- Delikatess Putenbrust - Classic has 40% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 1 g).
- Delikatess Hinterschinken has 27% less salt (1.7 g vs 2.3 g).
- Delikatess Hinterschinken has 100% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Delikatess Hinterschinken has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Delikatess Hinterschinken
Schweinefleisch, jodiertes Speisesalz (Speisesalz, Kaliumiodat), Dextrose, Festigungsmittel: Kaliumchlorid; Stabilisator: Diphosphate; Antioxidationsmittel: Natriumascorbat; Gewürze, Konservierungsstoff: Natriumnitrit.
Delikatess Putenbrust - Classic
Putenfleisch, Jodiertes Speisesalz, Dextrose, getrockneter Glukosesirup, Gewürze, Gewürzextrakt
FAQ
Which is healthier: Delikatess Hinterschinken or Delikatess Putenbrust - Classic?
Overall, Delikatess Hinterschinken 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?
Delikatess Putenbrust - Classic has fewer calories: 102 kcal versus 109 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Delikatess Hinterschinken has less sugar: 0.4 g versus 0.6 g per 100 g.