Kip grilworst vs Kalkoenfilet
Overall, Kalkoenfilet has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Kip grilworst | Kalkoenfilet |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 220 kcal | 107 kcal |
| Fat | 16 g | 2.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 5.1 g | 0.9 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0.7 g |
| Salt | 2.4 g | 5 g |
| Fiber | — | 0.3 g |
| Protein | 13 g | 18 g |
| Additives | 5 | 7 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kalkoenfilet has 51% fewer calories (107 kcal vs 220 kcal).
- Kalkoenfilet has 82% less fat (2.9 g vs 16 g).
- Kalkoenfilet has 82% less saturated fat (0.9 g vs 5.1 g).
- Kip grilworst has 53% less salt (2.4 g vs 5 g).
- Kalkoenfilet has 28% more protein (18 g vs 13 g).
- Kip grilworst has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Kip grilworst
77% kippenvlees, water, aardappelzetmeel, kippenvet, maltodextrine, zout, specerijen, conserveermiddel (E262, E250), gehydrolyseerd maiseiwit, dextrose, emulgator (E451), lavasblad, gedroogde ui, gistextract, antioxidant (E301, E330), aroma's, natuurlijke aroma's, citrusvezel, kleurstof (F100) Provincialeweg 11 1506 MA ZAANDAM Nederland ah.nl/ah.be NL 28 457506227 EG
Kalkoenfilet
81% kalkoenvlees, water, zuurteregelaar (E261, E325, E326, E331), zout, dextrose, kaliumchloride (dieetzout), suiker, natuurlijk aroma, antioxidant (E301), stabilisator (E407), conserveermiddel (E250).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Kip grilworst or Kalkoenfilet?
Overall, Kalkoenfilet 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?
Kalkoenfilet has fewer calories: 107 kcal versus 220 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kip grilworst has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.7 g per 100 g.