Comparison

Maki California Thon Avocat vs Maki saumon

Overall, Maki saumon has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientMaki California Thon AvocatMaki saumon
Nutri-Score c a
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 187 kcal 171 kcal
Fat 9.2 g 4.6 g
Saturated fat 1.5 g 0.9 g
Sugars 3 g 2.9 g
Salt 0.4 g 0.1 g
Fiber 1.1 g 0 g
Protein 6.5 g 8.4 g
Additives20
AllergensFish, Mustard, Sesame seedsNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Maki saumon has 50% less fat (4.6 g vs 9.2 g).
  • Maki saumon has 40% less saturated fat (0.9 g vs 1.5 g).
  • Maki saumon has 84% less salt (0.1 g vs 0.4 g).
  • Maki California Thon Avocat has 100% more fiber (1.1 g vs 0 g).
  • Maki saumon has 23% more protein (8.4 g vs 6.5 g).
  • Maki saumon has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Maki California Thon Avocat lists: Fish, Mustard, Sesame seeds.

Ingredients

Maki California Thon Avocat

Riz vinaigré [eau, riz, vinaigre à sushi [vinaigre d'alcool, sucre, sel, extrait de kelp], jus de citron, huile de tournesol, sel], mélange thon mayo [thon cuit [thon (poisson), eau, sel], mayonnaise [huile de colza, eau, sirop de glucose-fructose, vinaigre d'alcool, amidon modifié, sel, graines de moutarde, stabilisant : E415, épices]], avocat, sésame blanc, algues. Peut contenir : soja, œuf, céleri, crustacés, céréales contenant du gluten, fruits à coque, lait, arachide, sulfites.

Maki saumon

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Maki California Thon Avocat or Maki saumon?

Overall, Maki saumon 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?

Maki saumon has fewer calories: 171 kcal versus 187 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Maki saumon has less sugar: 2.9 g versus 3 g per 100 g.

More comparisons