Maple Chicken Patties vs 4 effeuilles de charolais
Overall, 4 effeuilles de charolais has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 9 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Maple Chicken Patties | 4 effeuilles de charolais |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 1 |
| Calories | 186 kcal | 121 kcal |
| Fat | 10.5 g | 4.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 2.3 g | 1.6 g |
| Sugars | 3.5 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 1.6 g | 0.2 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 16.3 g | 19.6 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Chicken | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- 4 effeuilles de charolais has 35% fewer calories (121 kcal vs 186 kcal).
- 4 effeuilles de charolais has 55% less fat (4.7 g vs 10.5 g).
- 4 effeuilles de charolais has 31% less saturated fat (1.6 g vs 2.3 g).
- 4 effeuilles de charolais has no sugar, while Maple Chicken Patties has 3.5 g.
- 4 effeuilles de charolais has 90% less salt (0.2 g vs 1.6 g).
- 4 effeuilles de charolais has 17% more protein (19.6 g vs 16.3 g).
- 4 effeuilles de charolais has the better Nutri-Score.
- 4 effeuilles de charolais is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Maple Chicken Patties lists: Chicken.
Ingredients
Maple Chicken Patties
Chicken, Pure Maple Syrup, Maple Extract, Sea Salt, Spices, Parsley, Crushed Red Pepper, Vinegar, Extract of Rosemary, Dried Citrus Pulp.
4 effeuilles de charolais
100 % viande bovine de race charolaise
FAQ
Which is healthier: Maple Chicken Patties or 4 effeuilles de charolais?
Overall, 4 effeuilles de charolais 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?
4 effeuilles de charolais has fewer calories: 121 kcal versus 186 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
4 effeuilles de charolais has less sugar: 0 g versus 3.5 g per 100 g.