Comparison

Mackerel fillets in sweet teriyaki dressing vs Filetes de caballa aceite girasol

Overall, Filetes de caballa aceite girasol has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientMackerel fillets in sweet te...Filetes de caballa aceite gi...
Nutri-Score d c
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 182 kcal 191 kcal
Fat 8.9 g 10.5 g
Saturated fat 2.1 g 2 g
Sugars 11.9 g 0 g
Salt 2 g 1.5 g
Fiber 0.5 g —
Protein 13.5 g 24.1 g
Additives10
AllergensFish, Gluten, SoybeansNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Mackerel fillets in sweet teriyaki dressing has 15% less fat (8.9 g vs 10.5 g).
  • Filetes de caballa aceite girasol has no sugar, while Mackerel fillets in sweet teriyaki dressing has 11.9 g.
  • Filetes de caballa aceite girasol has 24% less salt (1.5 g vs 2 g).
  • Filetes de caballa aceite girasol has 44% more protein (24.1 g vs 13.5 g).
  • Filetes de caballa aceite girasol has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Mackerel fillets in sweet teriyaki dressing lists: Fish, Gluten, Soybeans.

Ingredients

Mackerel fillets in sweet teriyaki dressing

Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) (Fish) (65%), Water, Sugar, Soya Sauce (Water, Soya Beans, Wheat Flour, Salt), Salt, Modified Corn Starch, Acidity Regulator: Acetic Acid.

Filetes de caballa aceite girasol

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Mackerel fillets in sweet teriyaki dressing or Filetes de caballa aceite girasol?

Overall, Filetes de caballa aceite girasol 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?

Mackerel fillets in sweet teriyaki dressing has fewer calories: 182 kcal versus 191 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Filetes de caballa aceite girasol has less sugar: 0 g versus 11.9 g per 100 g.

More comparisons