Filet de bacon vs Pancetta affumicata
Overall, Filet de bacon has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Filet de bacon | Pancetta affumicata |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 123 kcal | 353 kcal |
| Fat | 3 g | 31 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.7 g | 13 g |
| Sugars | 1.2 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 2.8 g | 3.3 g |
| Fiber | 0.9 g | — |
| Protein | 22.3 g | 18 g |
| Additives | 4 | 3 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Filet de bacon has 65% fewer calories (123 kcal vs 353 kcal).
- Filet de bacon has 90% less fat (3 g vs 31 g).
- Filet de bacon has 87% less saturated fat (1.7 g vs 13 g).
- Pancetta affumicata has no sugar, while Filet de bacon has 1.2 g.
- Filet de bacon has 17% less salt (2.8 g vs 3.3 g).
- Filet de bacon has 19% more protein (22.3 g vs 18 g).
- Filet de bacon has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Filet de bacon
Filet de porc (Origine : France), sel, acidifiant: lactate de sodium, dextrose, correcteur d'acidité : citrates de sodium, sucre, arômes, arômes de fumée, antioxydant: ascorbate de sodium , conservateur : nitrite de sodium, Traces éventuelles de lait, de moutarde, de fruits à coque et de soja,
Pancetta affumicata
Carne di suino, sale, spezie, aromi naturali, aroma di affumicatura. Antiossidante: ascorbato di sodio. Conservanti: nitrito di sodio, nitrato di potassio.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Filet de bacon or Pancetta affumicata?
Overall, Filet de bacon 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?
Filet de bacon has fewer calories: 123 kcal versus 353 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pancetta affumicata has less sugar: 0 g versus 1.2 g per 100 g.