Comparison

Fransk postej vs Hamburgerryg

Overall, Hamburgerryg has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientFransk postejHamburgerryg
Nutri-Score d c
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 248 kcal 119 kcal
Fat 20 g 3.4 g
Saturated fat 8.3 g 1.3 g
Sugars 1.7 g 0 g
Salt 1.1 g 1.8 g
Fiber — 0 g
Protein 11 g 22 g
Additives14
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Hamburgerryg has 52% fewer calories (119 kcal vs 248 kcal).
  • Hamburgerryg has 83% less fat (3.4 g vs 20 g).
  • Hamburgerryg has 84% less saturated fat (1.3 g vs 8.3 g).
  • Hamburgerryg has no sugar, while Fransk postej has 1.7 g.
  • Fransk postej has 39% less salt (1.1 g vs 1.8 g).
  • Hamburgerryg has 50% more protein (22 g vs 11 g).
  • Hamburgerryg has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Fransk postej

Fransk postej 400 g. Leverpostej. Ingredienser: Grise - lever 33%, grisespæk, vand, hvede - mel, løg, skummetmælkspulver, salt, ansjoser, krydderier, konserveringsmiddel: sorbinsyre, antioxidant: natriumascorbat, stabilisator: E451. Næringsindho Energi Fedt heraf mætted Kulhydrat heraf sukkera Protein Salt Opbevares ved højst 5°C. Holdbarhed efter åbning: 7 dage ved max 5°C, dog højst til sidste anvendelsesdato. Bakke med 80% L 70400

Hamburgerryg

Grisefilet (97%), salt, stabilisator (carrageenan), druesukker, kaliumchlorid, antioxidant (natriumascorbat), konserveringsmiddel (natriumnitrit).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Fransk postej or Hamburgerryg?

Overall, Hamburgerryg 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?

Hamburgerryg has fewer calories: 119 kcal versus 248 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Hamburgerryg has less sugar: 0 g versus 1.7 g per 100 g.

More comparisons