Comparison

Filet de Saxe vs Lomo

Overall, Filet de Saxe has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientFilet de SaxeLomo
Nutri-Score d e
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 112 kcal 235 kcal
Fat 1.5 g 8 g
Saturated fat 0.6 g 3.2 g
Sugars 0.9 g 0.2 g
Salt 3.4 g 4.5 g
Fiber 0 g 0.1 g
Protein 22 g 39.9 g
Additives43
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Filet de Saxe has 52% fewer calories (112 kcal vs 235 kcal).
  • Filet de Saxe has 81% less fat (1.5 g vs 8 g).
  • Filet de Saxe has 81% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 3.2 g).
  • Lomo has 78% less sugar (0.2 g vs 0.9 g).
  • Filet de Saxe has 24% less salt (3.4 g vs 4.5 g).
  • Lomo has 45% more protein (39.9 g vs 22 g).
  • Filet de Saxe has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Lomo is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

Filet de Saxe

96% viande de porc*, 3,4% sel*, sirop de glucose, conservateurs: acétates de sodium, nitrite de sodium, nitrate de potassium; antioxydant: ascorbate de sodium; extrait de levure, plantes aromatiques, épices, arôme, fumée. *Sur le produit fini. 100g de filet de saxe sont élaborés à partir de 103g de viande de porc. Peut contenir des traces de céréales contenant du gluten, d'œuf, de soja, de lait, de fruits à coque, de céleri et de moutarde.

Lomo

Viande de porc, sel, poivre, sucre, ail, épices, régulateur d'acidité : citrate de trisodium, antioxydant : ascorbate de sodium, conservateur : nitrite de sodium.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Filet de Saxe or Lomo?

Overall, Filet de Saxe 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 Saxe has fewer calories: 112 kcal versus 235 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Lomo has less sugar: 0.2 g versus 0.9 g per 100 g.

More comparisons