Comparison
Filet de saxe bio vs Filet de Saxe
Overall, Filet de Saxe has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Filet de saxe bio | Filet de Saxe |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | d |
| NOVA group | — | 3 |
| Calories | 121 kcal | 116 kcal |
| Fat | 1.8 g | 1.3 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.3 g | 0.5 g |
| Sugars | 0.8 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 3 g | 2.7 g |
| Protein | 25 g | 26 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Saxe has 28% less fat (1.3 g vs 1.8 g).
- Filet de Saxe has 38% less sugar (0.5 g vs 0.8 g).
Ingredients
Filet de saxe bio
Not available.
Filet de Saxe
97 4 % viande de porc. sel, conservateur E250)
FAQ
Which is healthier: Filet de saxe bio or Filet de Saxe?
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: 116 kcal versus 121 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Filet de Saxe has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.8 g per 100 g.