Hachés de Poulet Rôtis vs Hamburguesas de Pollo
Overall, Hachés de Poulet Rôtis has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Hachés de Poulet Rôtis | Hamburguesas de Pollo |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | c |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 178 kcal | 143 kcal |
| Fat | 9.5 g | 9.2 g |
| Saturated fat | 3 g | 3 g |
| Sugars | 1.2 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 18 g | 15 g |
| Additives | 0 | 2 |
| Allergens | Soybeans | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Hamburguesas de Pollo has 20% fewer calories (143 kcal vs 178 kcal).
- Hamburguesas de Pollo has 58% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.2 g).
- Hachés de Poulet Rôtis has 43% less salt (0.9 g vs 1.5 g).
- Hachés de Poulet Rôtis has 17% more protein (18 g vs 15 g).
- Hachés de Poulet Rôtis has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Hachés de Poulet Rôtis lists: Soybeans.
- Only Hamburguesas de Pollo lists: Milk.
Ingredients
Hachés de Poulet Rôtis
Viande de filet poulet 70% (origine : france), eau, protéines de soja 8,8%, sirop de glucose, fécule de pomme de terre, arôme naturel de poivre avec autres arômes naturels, sel,
Hamburguesas de Pollo
Carne de pollo (85%), agua, fibra y almidón de guisante, sal, especias, vinagre, antioxidantes (citratos de sodio, ascorbato sódico aroma natural y concentrado vegetal. Puede contener trazas de soja y proteína láctea.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Hachés de Poulet Rôtis or Hamburguesas de Pollo?
Overall, Hachés de Poulet Rôtis 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?
Hamburguesas de Pollo has fewer calories: 143 kcal versus 178 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Hamburguesas de Pollo has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.2 g per 100 g.