Comparison

Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) vs Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG)

Overall, Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientFlore di Macchia (31 % MG)Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG)
Nutri-Score a d
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 35 kcal 340 kcal
Fat 0.2 g 24 g
Saturated fat 0.1 g 16 g
Sugars 4.9 g 0 g
Salt 0.1 g 1.5 g
Fiber 0 g 0 g
Protein 3.3 g 24 g
Additives04
AllergensMilkEggs, Milk

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

Key differences

  • Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has 90% fewer calories (35 kcal vs 340 kcal).
  • Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has 99% less fat (0.2 g vs 24 g).
  • Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has 99% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 16 g).
  • Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG) has no sugar, while Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has 4.9 g.
  • Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has 93% less salt (0.1 g vs 1.5 g).
  • Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG) has 86% more protein (24 g vs 3.3 g).
  • Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG) lists: Eggs.

Ingredients

Flore di Macchia (31 % MG)

Lait de brebis (85 %), lait de chèvre (15 %) pasteurisés, présure, sel.

Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG)

Lait de chèvre pasteurisé, sel, coagulant, ferments, colorants de croûte (caramel ordinaire, rocou), conservateurs : lysozyme d’œuf, E235 (dans la croûte).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) or Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG)?

Overall, Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) 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?

Flore di Macchia (31 % MG) has fewer calories: 35 kcal versus 340 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Tomme de chèvre (24 % MG) has less sugar: 0 g versus 4.9 g per 100 g.

More comparisons