Maki saumon vs Smoked salmon sushi snack
Overall, Maki saumon has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Maki saumon | Smoked salmon sushi snack |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | c |
| NOVA group | — | 3 |
| Calories | 171 kcal | 151 kcal |
| Fat | 4.6 g | 2.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.9 g | 0.7 g |
| Sugars | 2.9 g | 3.5 g |
| Salt | 0.1 g | 1.2 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 1 g |
| Protein | 8.4 g | 5.7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Fish, Milk, Sesame seeds, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Smoked salmon sushi snack has 12% fewer calories (151 kcal vs 171 kcal).
- Smoked salmon sushi snack has 46% less fat (2.5 g vs 4.6 g).
- Maki saumon has 17% less sugar (2.9 g vs 3.5 g).
- Maki saumon has 94% less salt (0.1 g vs 1.2 g).
- Smoked salmon sushi snack has 100% more fiber (1 g vs 0 g).
- Maki saumon has 32% more protein (8.4 g vs 5.7 g).
- Maki saumon has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Smoked salmon sushi snack lists: Fish, Milk, Sesame seeds, Soybeans.
Ingredients
Maki saumon
Not available.
Smoked salmon sushi snack
SUSHI RICE (66%) (Water, White Rice, Rice Vinegar, Sugar Spirit Vinegar, Rapeseed Oil, Salt), Low Fat Soft Cheese (Low Fat Soft Cheese (Milk), Cornflour, Salt), SMOKED SALMON (10%) (Salmon (Salma salar) (Fish), Salt, Sugar), Cucumber, Soy Sauce (Water, Soya Bean, Salt, Rice Vinegar), Nori Seaweed, Black Sesame Seeds
FAQ
Which is healthier: Maki saumon or Smoked salmon sushi snack?
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?
Smoked salmon sushi snack has fewer calories: 151 kcal versus 171 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Maki saumon has less sugar: 2.9 g versus 3.5 g per 100 g.