Comparison
Goldband Selar vs Fisch
Overall, Goldband Selar has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Goldband Selar | Fisch |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 291 kcal | 277 kcal |
| Fat | 5.3 g | 1 g |
| Saturated fat | 3.2 g | 0.3 g |
| Sugars | 1.2 g | 6.8 g |
| Salt | 9.1 g | 12.5 g |
| Protein | 56.2 g | 40.7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Fisch has 81% less fat (1 g vs 5.3 g).
- Fisch has 92% less saturated fat (0.3 g vs 3.2 g).
- Goldband Selar has 82% less sugar (1.2 g vs 6.8 g).
- Goldband Selar has 28% less salt (9.1 g vs 12.5 g).
- Goldband Selar has 28% more protein (56.2 g vs 40.7 g).
Ingredients
Goldband Selar
Not available.
Fisch
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Goldband Selar or Fisch?
Overall, Goldband Selar 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?
Fisch has fewer calories: 277 kcal versus 291 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Goldband Selar has less sugar: 1.2 g versus 6.8 g per 100 g.