Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic vs Makrillfiléer i Tomatsås
Overall, Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.
Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic
Makrillfiléer i Tomatsås
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Filet de maquereaux à la tom... | Makrillfiléer i Tomatsås |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | c |
| NOVA group | — | 1 |
| Calories | 143 kcal | 160 kcal |
| Fat | 8.1 g | 11 g |
| Saturated fat | 2 g | 2.7 g |
| Sugars | 1.6 g | 1.8 g |
| Salt | 1 g | 0.9 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 1.6 g |
| Protein | 13 g | 13 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
- Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic has 11% fewer calories (143 kcal vs 160 kcal).
- Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic has 26% less fat (8.1 g vs 11 g).
- Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic has 26% less saturated fat (2 g vs 2.7 g).
- Makrillfiléer i Tomatsås has 100% more fiber (1.6 g vs 0 g).
- Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Makrillfiléer i Tomatsås lists: Fish.
Ingredients
Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic
Not available.
Makrillfiléer i Tomatsås
Makrillfilé (Scomber scombrus) 64%, vatten, tomatpuré 13% salt
FAQ
Which is healthier: Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic or Makrillfiléer i Tomatsås?
Overall, Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic 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 maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic has fewer calories: 143 kcal versus 160 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Filet de maquereaux à la tomate et au basilic has less sugar: 1.6 g versus 1.8 g per 100 g.