Filetti di aringa con cipolle vs Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art
Overall, Filetti di aringa con cipolle has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.
Filetti di aringa con cipolle
Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Filetti di aringa con cipoll... | Edle Matjesfilets nordische... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 184 kcal | 177 kcal |
| Fat | 15.5 g | 13 g |
| Saturated fat | 3.5 g | 3.1 g |
| Sugars | 0.8 g | 1.8 g |
| Salt | 1.4 g | 3.7 g |
| Protein | 10 g | 13 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | Fish, Matjesfilets |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art has 16% less fat (13 g vs 15.5 g).
- Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art has 11% less saturated fat (3.1 g vs 3.5 g).
- Filetti di aringa con cipolle has 56% less sugar (0.8 g vs 1.8 g).
- Filetti di aringa con cipolle has 63% less salt (1.4 g vs 3.7 g).
- Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art has 23% more protein (13 g vs 10 g).
- Filetti di aringa con cipolle has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art lists: Fish, Matjesfilets.
Ingredients
Filetti di aringa con cipolle
Not available.
Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art
_Matjesfilets_ nordische Art 98% (_Heringsfilets_, Speisesalz, Dextrose, Säureregulatoren: Natriumlactat, Natriumacetate; Zwiebelextrakt), Rapsöl 2%
FAQ
Which is healthier: Filetti di aringa con cipolle or Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art?
Overall, Filetti di aringa con cipolle 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?
Edle Matjesfilets nordische Art has fewer calories: 177 kcal versus 184 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Filetti di aringa con cipolle has less sugar: 0.8 g versus 1.8 g per 100 g.