Comparison

Kipfilet met chilipeper 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

NutrientKipfilet met chilipeperKalkoenfilet
Nutri-Score d e
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 136 kcal 107 kcal
Fat 5.2 g 2.9 g
Saturated fat 1.6 g 0.9 g
Sugars 2.2 g 0.7 g
Salt 1.9 g 5 g
Fiber 0.2 g 0.3 g
Protein 17 g 18 g
Additives57
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Kalkoenfilet has 21% fewer calories (107 kcal vs 136 kcal).
  • Kalkoenfilet has 44% less fat (2.9 g vs 5.2 g).
  • Kalkoenfilet has 44% less saturated fat (0.9 g vs 1.6 g).
  • Kalkoenfilet has 68% less sugar (0.7 g vs 2.2 g).
  • Kipfilet met chilipeper has 62% less salt (1.9 g vs 5 g).
  • Kipfilet met chilipeper has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Kipfilet met chilipeper

86% kippenvlees, water, zuurteregelaar (kaliumacetaat [e261], kaliumlactaat [e3261, natriumcitraat [e3311), zout, kaliumchloride (dieetzout), dextrose, suiker, aroma, natuurlijk aroma, rookaroma, stabilisator (carrageen [e407]), antioxidant (natriumascorbaat [e301]), tomatenpoeder, specerijen (o.a. chili), extract van paprika, conserveermiddel (natriumnitriet [e250]).

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: Kipfilet met chilipeper 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 136 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Kalkoenfilet has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 2.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons