Filet de maquereau vs Filets de maquereau
Overall, Filets de maquereau has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Filet de maquereau | Filets de maquereau |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | b |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 340 kcal | 160 kcal |
| Fat | 29 g | 10 g |
| Saturated fat | 6.3 g | 2.5 g |
| Sugars | 0.1 g | 1.9 g |
| Salt | 2.3 g | 0.8 g |
| Protein | 19.5 g | 14 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Fish |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Filets de maquereau has 53% fewer calories (160 kcal vs 340 kcal).
- Filets de maquereau has 66% less fat (10 g vs 29 g).
- Filets de maquereau has 60% less saturated fat (2.5 g vs 6.3 g).
- Filet de maquereau has 95% less sugar (0.1 g vs 1.9 g).
- Filets de maquereau has 65% less salt (0.8 g vs 2.3 g).
- Filet de maquereau has 28% more protein (19.5 g vs 14 g).
- Filets de maquereau has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Filets de maquereau lists: Fish.
Ingredients
Filet de maquereau
Not available.
Filets de maquereau
Denemarken. Rijk aan FR FILETS DE MAQUEREAU À LA SAUCE TOMATE - 64% MAQUEREAU [Scomber scombrus, pêché au chalut ou aux filets tournants et soulevés en mer de Norvège, en mer du Nord septentrionale ou en Ouest Écosse (FAO 27.lla, IVa, Vla)], eau, 12,3% double concentré de tomates, sel. Conditionné au Danemark. Riche en oméga-3. EN MACKEREL FILLETS IN TOMATO SALICE - 64%
FAQ
Which is healthier: Filet de maquereau or Filets de maquereau?
Overall, Filets de maquereau 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?
Filets de maquereau has fewer calories: 160 kcal versus 340 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Filet de maquereau has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 1.9 g per 100 g.