Comparison

Dés d'Épaule vs Cabecero de lomo

Overall, Dés d'Épaule has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientDés d'ÉpauleCabecero de lomo
Nutri-Score d e
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 130 kcal 270 kcal
Fat 6 g 16 g
Saturated fat 2.2 g 6.7 g
Sugars 1.9 g 0.5 g
Salt 1.8 g 4.4 g
Protein 17 g 31 g
Additives54
AllergensCeleryNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Dés d'Épaule has 52% fewer calories (130 kcal vs 270 kcal).
  • Dés d'Épaule has 63% less fat (6 g vs 16 g).
  • Dés d'Épaule has 67% less saturated fat (2.2 g vs 6.7 g).
  • Cabecero de lomo has 74% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.9 g).
  • Dés d'Épaule has 59% less salt (1.8 g vs 4.4 g).
  • Cabecero de lomo has 45% more protein (31 g vs 17 g).
  • Dés d'Épaule has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Dés d'Épaule lists: Celery.

Ingredients

Dés d'Épaule

Épaule de porc 68%, jambon de porc, eau, acidifiant : lactate de potassium, sel, dextrose, bouillon (eau, os de porc, céleri, plantes aromatiques, viande de porc, jus concentrés de céleri et carotte, épices), stabilisant diphosphates, gélatine de porc, arômes naturels, chlorure de potassium, poivre, antioxydants: ascorbate de sodium acide ascorbique, conservateurs vinaigre tamponné nitrite de sodium. Viande de porc origine UE.

Cabecero de lomo

Cabecero de lomo de cerdo, sal, pimentones, dextrosa, antioxidantes (E-331,E-301), aromas, ajo, especias y conservadores (E-250, E-252).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Dés d'Épaule or Cabecero de lomo?

Overall, Dés d'Épaule 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?

Dés d'Épaule has fewer calories: 130 kcal versus 270 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Cabecero de lomo has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.9 g per 100 g.

More comparisons