Comparison

Epaule cuite standard 8 tranches vs Bavarian style ham

Overall, Bavarian style ham has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientEpaule cuite standard 8 tran...Bavarian style ham
Nutri-Score d d
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 106 kcal 107 kcal
Fat 5.1 g 2.4 g
Saturated fat 1.7 g 1 g
Sugars 2 g 0.5 g
Salt 2.5 g 2.6 g
Fiber 0 g 0 g
Protein 13 g 21 g
Additives53
AllergensNone listedPork

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

Key differences

  • Bavarian style ham has 53% less fat (2.4 g vs 5.1 g).
  • Bavarian style ham has 41% less saturated fat (1 g vs 1.7 g).
  • Bavarian style ham has 75% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2 g).
  • Bavarian style ham has 38% more protein (21 g vs 13 g).
  • Only Bavarian style ham lists: Pork.

Ingredients

Epaule cuite standard 8 tranches

Épaule de porc 66% (origine : UE) - eau - protéines de sang - dextrose - sel - conservateurs : lactate de potassium, nitrite de sodium - stabilisants : triphosphates, polyphosphates - arômes naturels - antioxydant : érythorbate de sodium.

Bavarian style ham

Pork*, Iodised Salt [Salt, Preservative (Sodium Nitrite), Potassium Iodate], Smoked Salt, Stabiliser (Diphosphates), Spice Extracts [Lovage, Pepper], Fenugreek, Onion Powder, Garlic Powder, Leek Extract, Antioxidant (Sodium Ascorbate). *Made with 100g of pork per 100g of finished product. May contain celery and mustard.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Epaule cuite standard 8 tranches or Bavarian style ham?

Overall, Bavarian style ham 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?

Epaule cuite standard 8 tranches has fewer calories: 106 kcal versus 107 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Bavarian style ham has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons