Filets de Sardines Citron Basilic vs Sardines au naturel
Overall, Sardines au naturel has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 1.
Filets de Sardines Citron Basilic
Sardines au naturel
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Filets de Sardines Citron Ba... | Sardines au naturel |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | b |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 147 kcal | 173 kcal |
| Fat | 8.4 g | 8.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 2.5 g | 2.6 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 1.3 g | 0.9 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 17 g | 22 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Fish | Fish |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Filets de Sardines Citron Basilic has 15% fewer calories (147 kcal vs 173 kcal).
- Sardines au naturel has no sugar, while Filets de Sardines Citron Basilic has 0.5 g.
- Sardines au naturel has 31% less salt (0.9 g vs 1.3 g).
- Sardines au naturel has 23% more protein (22 g vs 17 g).
- Sardines au naturel has the better Nutri-Score.
- Sardines au naturel is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Filets de Sardines Citron Basilic
Filets de sardines** eau, jus concentré de citron avec arôme naturel d'agrumes (1,1%), vinaigre, zestes de citron (1%), sel, basilic (0,7%), sucre, épaississant gomme guar, arôme naturel. **Sardina pilchardus.
Sardines au naturel
SARDINES (Sardina pilchardus), eau, pulpe de citron*, sel, thym*, fenouil*, persil*, laurier*.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Filets de Sardines Citron Basilic or Sardines au naturel?
Overall, Sardines au naturel 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 Sardines Citron Basilic has fewer calories: 147 kcal versus 173 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Sardines au naturel has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.