Flusskrebssalat vs 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage
Overall, 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Flusskrebssalat | 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | a |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 343 kcal | 79 kcal |
| Fat | 32 g | 0.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 2.5 g | 0.1 g |
| Sugars | 7.2 g | 0.2 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 0.7 g |
| Protein | 5.8 g | 15.6 g |
| Additives | 5 | 0 |
| Allergens | Crustaceans, Eggs, Mustard | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has 77% fewer calories (79 kcal vs 343 kcal).
- 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has 97% less fat (0.9 g vs 32 g).
- 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has 96% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 2.5 g).
- 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has 97% less sugar (0.2 g vs 7.2 g).
- 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has 63% more protein (15.6 g vs 5.8 g).
- 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Flusskrebssalat lists: Crustaceans, Eggs, Mustard.
Ingredients
Flusskrebssalat
Louisiana-Flusskrebsfleisch (Procambarus clarki) 35%, Rapsöl, Äpfel, Porree, Zucker, Eigelb, Knoblauch, Tomatenmark, Kräuter, Gewürze, Speisesalz, Senfsaat, Branntweinessig, Säuerungsmittel: Citronensäure, Essigsäure; Säureregulator: Natriumacetate; Traubenzucker, Maltodextrine, Verdickungsmittel: Guarkernmehl, Xanthan; Aroma.
500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Flusskrebssalat or 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage?
Overall, 500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage 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?
500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has fewer calories: 79 kcal versus 343 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
500G Ecrevisse Cuite Nage has less sugar: 0.2 g versus 7.2 g per 100 g.