Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof vs Matjesfilets
Overall, Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.
Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof
Matjesfilets
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Haringfilets in azijn met zo... | Matjesfilets |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 161 kcal | 228 kcal |
| Fat | 12 g | 18.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 4.1 g | 3.1 g |
| Sugars | 0.6 g | 0.1 g |
| Salt | 2.1 g | 6.4 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 13 g | 15.6 g |
| Additives | 0 | 3 |
| Allergens | None listed | Fish, Hering |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof has 29% fewer calories (161 kcal vs 228 kcal).
- Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof has 35% less fat (12 g vs 18.4 g).
- Matjesfilets has 24% less saturated fat (3.1 g vs 4.1 g).
- Matjesfilets has 83% less sugar (0.1 g vs 0.6 g).
- Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof has 67% less salt (2.1 g vs 6.4 g).
- Matjesfilets has 17% more protein (15.6 g vs 13 g).
- Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Matjesfilets lists: Fish, Hering.
Ingredients
Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof
Not available.
Matjesfilets
97% Matjesfilets nordische Art (_Hering_, Salz, Traubenzucker, Säuerungsmittel: Citronensäure; Säureregulator: Natriumcitrate, Konservierungsstoff: Natriumbenzoat), Rapsöl
FAQ
Which is healthier: Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof or Matjesfilets?
Overall, Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof 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?
Haringfilets in azijn met zoetstof has fewer calories: 161 kcal versus 228 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Matjesfilets has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 0.6 g per 100 g.