Ma soupe repas « potee à l’auvergnate vs Pork Sausages
Overall, Pork Sausages has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 1.
Ma soupe repas « potee à l’auvergnate
Pork Sausages
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Ma soupe repas « potee à l’a... | Pork Sausages |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | a |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 59 kcal | 79 kcal |
| Fat | 1.7 g | 1.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.6 g | 0.5 g |
| Sugars | 1.9 g | 0.4 g |
| Salt | 0.8 g | 0.7 g |
| Fiber | 1.8 g | — |
| Protein | 2.6 g | 11.8 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Celery | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Ma soupe repas « potee à l’auvergnate has 25% fewer calories (59 kcal vs 79 kcal).
- Pork Sausages has 79% less sugar (0.4 g vs 1.9 g).
- Pork Sausages has 78% more protein (11.8 g vs 2.6 g).
- Pork Sausages has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Ma soupe repas « potee à l’auvergnate lists: Celery.
Ingredients
Ma soupe repas « potee à l’auvergnate
INRÉQlENJS:eau, viande de bœuf traitée en salaison et précuite 8% (viande bovine, amidon de tapioca, sel), pommes de terre 7,8%, haricots blancs précuits, navets 6,5%, poireaux 6%, céleri 5%, oignons, huile de tournesol;arômes naturels, amidon de mais, ail, thym, épices (dont céleri), Bœuf origine France, Fabriqué dans un atelier utilisant : blé, lait, œuf, moutarde, poisson, crustacés et mollusques.
Pork Sausages
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Ma soupe repas « potee à l’auvergnate or Pork Sausages?
Overall, Pork Sausages 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?
Ma soupe repas « potee à l’auvergnate has fewer calories: 59 kcal versus 79 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pork Sausages has less sugar: 0.4 g versus 1.9 g per 100 g.