Italian dressing vs Italian balsamic & olive oil dressing
Overall, Italian dressing 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 | Italian dressing | Italian balsamic & olive oil... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | — | 3 |
| Calories | 267 kcal | 594 kcal |
| Fat | 26.7 g | 54.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 5 g | 6.6 g |
| Sugars | 6.7 g | 13.3 g |
| Salt | 4.2 g | 1.3 g |
| Fiber | — | 0.2 g |
| Protein | 0 g | 0.7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 1 |
| Allergens | None listed | Sulphur dioxide and sulphites |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Italian dressing has 55% fewer calories (267 kcal vs 594 kcal).
- Italian dressing has 51% less fat (26.7 g vs 54.4 g).
- Italian dressing has 24% less saturated fat (5 g vs 6.6 g).
- Italian dressing has 50% less sugar (6.7 g vs 13.3 g).
- Italian balsamic & olive oil dressing has 69% less salt (1.3 g vs 4.2 g).
- Italian balsamic & olive oil dressing has 100% more protein (0.7 g vs 0 g).
- Only Italian balsamic & olive oil dressing lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.
Ingredients
Italian dressing
Not available.
Italian balsamic & olive oil dressing
Olive oil (31%), Balsamic Vinegar of Modena (30%) (wine vinegar, concentrated grape must, preservative (sulphur dioxide)), rapeseed oil, water, Sugar, honey, garlic purée, salt, ground black pepper ALLERGY ADVICE: For allergens see ingredients in bold
FAQ
Which is healthier: Italian dressing or Italian balsamic & olive oil dressing?
Overall, Italian dressing 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?
Italian dressing has fewer calories: 267 kcal versus 594 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Italian dressing has less sugar: 6.7 g versus 13.3 g per 100 g.