Filet de truite vs Regenbogen-Forellenfilets
Overall, Filet de truite has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Filet de truite
Regenbogen-Forellenfilets
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Filet de truite | Regenbogen-Forellenfilets |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | — |
| Calories | 162 kcal | 139 kcal |
| Fat | 8.7 g | 6.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.2 g | 1.6 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0.8 g | 2.3 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 21 g | 20 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
- Regenbogen-Forellenfilets has 14% fewer calories (139 kcal vs 162 kcal).
- Regenbogen-Forellenfilets has 26% less fat (6.4 g vs 8.7 g).
- Filet de truite has 25% less saturated fat (1.2 g vs 1.6 g).
- Filet de truite has 67% less salt (0.8 g vs 2.3 g).
- Filet de truite has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Regenbogen-Forellenfilets lists: Fish.
Ingredients
Filet de truite
Forellenfilet (75 %), Rapsöl, Branntweinessig, Speisesalz, Buchenholzrauch.
Regenbogen-Forellenfilets
Forellenfilet (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Aquakultur gewonnen in Dänemar Kochsalz. Heissgeräuchert (durchgegart). Ingrédients : filet de truite (Oncorhynchus mykiss) poisson élevé au Danemark, sel de cuisine. Fumés à chaud (cults). Ingredienti: filetto di trota (Oncorhynchus mykiss) allevata in Danimarca, sale da cucina. Affumicata a caldo (colti).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Filet de truite or Regenbogen-Forellenfilets?
Overall, Filet de truite 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?
Regenbogen-Forellenfilets has fewer calories: 139 kcal versus 162 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Filet de truite has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.