Comparison

Filets de harengs fumés -25% de sel vs Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre

Overall, Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientFilets de harengs fumés -25%...Filets de harengs, doux et f...
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 227 kcal 176 kcal
Fat 16 g 12 g
Saturated fat 3.6 g 3 g
Sugars 0 g 0 g
Salt 3.3 g 3.9 g
Fiber 0 g 0 g
Protein 20 g 17 g
Additives40
AllergensFishFish

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

Key differences

  • Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre has 22% fewer calories (176 kcal vs 227 kcal).
  • Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre has 25% less fat (12 g vs 16 g).
  • Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre has 17% less saturated fat (3 g vs 3.6 g).
  • Filets de harengs fumés -25% de sel has 15% less salt (3.3 g vs 3.9 g).
  • Filets de harengs fumés -25% de sel has 15% more protein (20 g vs 17 g).
  • Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

Filets de harengs fumés -25% de sel

Hareng, sel 3,3%, sucre,: lactate de potassium, diacétate de sodium, acide citrique.

Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre

Filets de HARENG (clupea HARENGUS) 96% - sel 4%.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Filets de harengs fumés -25% de sel or Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre?

Overall, Filets de harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre 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 harengs, doux et fumés au bois de hêtre has fewer calories: 176 kcal versus 227 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Filets de harengs fumés -25% de sel has less sugar: 0 g versus 0 g per 100 g.

More comparisons