Comparison

Haricots façon chili vs Haricots rouges au naturel

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

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientHaricots façon chiliHaricots rouges au naturel
Nutri-Score a c
NOVA group 3 3
Calories 82 kcal 111 kcal
Fat 1.3 g 0.8 g
Saturated fat 0.1 g 0.4 g
Sugars 2.2 g 2.5 g
Salt 0.7 g 0.5 g
Fiber 4.6 g —
Protein 5.3 g 7.5 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 26% fewer calories (82 kcal vs 111 kcal).
  • Haricots rouges au naturel has 38% less fat (0.8 g vs 1.3 g).
  • Haricots façon chili has 75% less saturated fat (0.1 g vs 0.4 g).
  • Haricots rouges au naturel has 29% more protein (7.5 g vs 5.3 g).
  • Haricots façon chili has the better Nutri-Score.

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)

Haricots rouges au naturel

Haricots rouges*, eau, sel de Guérande. *Produit issu de l'agriculture biologique

FAQ

Which is healthier: Haricots façon chili or Haricots rouges au naturel?

Overall, Haricots façon chili 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 111 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Haricots façon chili has less sugar: 2.2 g versus 2.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons