Comparison

Grillpølse av kylling og kalkun vs Puten Schinken

Overall, Puten Schinken has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientGrillpølse av kylling og kal...Puten Schinken
Nutri-Score c c
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 152 kcal 114 kcal
Fat 9 g 2 g
Saturated fat 2.5 g 0.8 g
Sugars 0.4 g 1.2 g
Salt 1.6 g 2 g
Fiber 0 g 0 g
Protein 11 g 19 g
Additives42
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Puten Schinken has 25% fewer calories (114 kcal vs 152 kcal).
  • Puten Schinken has 78% less fat (2 g vs 9 g).
  • Puten Schinken has 68% less saturated fat (0.8 g vs 2.5 g).
  • Grillpølse av kylling og kalkun has 67% less sugar (0.4 g vs 1.2 g).
  • Grillpølse av kylling og kalkun has 21% less salt (1.6 g vs 2 g).
  • Puten Schinken has 42% more protein (19 g vs 11 g).

Ingredients

Grillpølse av kylling og kalkun

Maskinelt utbenet kylling - og kalkunkjøtt (47 %), vann, kalkunjøtt (17 %), potetmel, salt, modifisert stivelse E1414, dekstrose, krydder, røykaroma, antioksidant E315, konserveringsmiddel E326, E261, E250,

Puten Schinken

PUTEN-SCHINKEN gekocht :85% Putenfleisch, Trinkwasser, Speisesalz, Maltodextrin, Stabilisatoren: E450,E45 1,Gewürze, Gewürzextrakte, Antoxidationsmitel:E301;Konservierungsstoff.E250. *Ursprungsland: EU. Unter Schutzatmosphäre verpackt Nach dem Offnen zum unmittelbaren Verzehr bestimmt

FAQ

Which is healthier: Grillpølse av kylling og kalkun or Puten Schinken?

Overall, Puten Schinken 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?

Puten Schinken has fewer calories: 114 kcal versus 152 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Grillpølse av kylling og kalkun has less sugar: 0.4 g versus 1.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons