Comparison

Lidl Haddock Fillets vs Thon Albacore

Overall, Thon Albacore has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientLidl Haddock FilletsThon Albacore
Nutri-Score c a
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 204 kcal 102 kcal
Fat 10.2 g 0.5 g
Saturated fat 0.8 g 0.2 g
Sugars 1.8 g 0.5 g
Salt 0.9 g 0.1 g
Fiber 0.7 g 0.5 g
Protein 9.2 g 24 g
Additives30
AllergensFish, Gluten, Milk, MustardFish

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

Key differences

  • Thon Albacore has 50% fewer calories (102 kcal vs 204 kcal).
  • Thon Albacore has 95% less fat (0.5 g vs 10.2 g).
  • Thon Albacore has 75% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 0.8 g).
  • Thon Albacore has 72% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.8 g).
  • Thon Albacore has 88% less salt (0.1 g vs 0.9 g).
  • Thon Albacore has 62% more protein (24 g vs 9.2 g).
  • Thon Albacore has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Lidl Haddock Fillets lists: Gluten, Milk, Mustard.

Ingredients

Lidl Haddock Fillets

Haddock 52% (FISH) Batter (Wheat flour [WHEAT flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin, Thiamin), Potato Starch, Rice Flour, Maize Flour, WHEAT Starch, Salt, Dextrose, Sunflower Oil, Palm Oil, Skimmed MILK Powder, MUSTARD, Raising Agents (Diphosphates, Sodium Carbonates, Ammonium carbonates), Flavouring, Black Pepper), Rapeseed Oil.

Thon Albacore

Yellowfin tuna (FISH) boneless*. Wild Thunnus albacares caught using purse seines and lift nets in the western Indian Ocean (FAO 51).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Lidl Haddock Fillets or Thon Albacore?

Overall, Thon Albacore 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?

Thon Albacore has fewer calories: 102 kcal versus 204 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Thon Albacore has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.8 g per 100 g.

More comparisons