Comparison

Haricots façon chili vs Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen

Overall, Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientHaricots façon chiliHak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen
Nutri-Score a a
NOVA group 3 3
Calories 82 kcal 103 kcal
Fat 1.3 g 0.5 g
Saturated fat 0.1 g 0.1 g
Sugars 2.2 g 0.8 g
Salt 0.7 g 0.4 g
Fiber 4.6 g 8.1 g
Protein 5.3 g 7.7 g
Additives00
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Haricots façon chili has 20% fewer calories (82 kcal vs 103 kcal).
  • Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen has 62% less fat (0.5 g vs 1.3 g).
  • Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen has 64% less sugar (0.8 g vs 2.2 g).
  • Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen has 43% more fiber (8.1 g vs 4.6 g).
  • Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen has 31% more protein (7.7 g vs 5.3 g).

Ingredients

Haricots façon chili

Haricots rouges secs trempés*¹ 33%, eau, tomates* 21,5% (purée de tomates*¹ mi-réduite 12,3%, pulpe de tomates*¹ 7,2%, double concentré de tomates*), légumes en morceaux* 11,2% (carottes*¹ 4,8%, oignons*, poivrons rouges*), maïs* 2,9%, huile de tournesol* desodorisée, sel marin, épices, purée d'ail*, jus de citron* concentré, plante aromatique*. *Produits issus de l'agriculture biologique ¹ Origine France (81% des ingrédients agricoles bio)

Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen

Petits haricots rouges, eau, sel.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Haricots façon chili or Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen?

Overall, Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen 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?

Haricots façon chili has fewer calories: 82 kcal versus 103 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Hak Kleine Rode Kidneybonen has less sugar: 0.8 g versus 2.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons