Marcassou Marcachouffe zonder look bel vs Kalkoenfilet
Overall, Kalkoenfilet has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Marcassou Marcachouffe zonder look bel
Kalkoenfilet
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Marcassou Marcachouffe zonde... | Kalkoenfilet |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 442 kcal | 107 kcal |
| Fat | 36 g | 2.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 14 g | 0.9 g |
| Sugars | 3.5 g | 0.7 g |
| Salt | 3.9 g | 5 g |
| Fiber | — | 0.3 g |
| Protein | 26 g | 18 g |
| Additives | 2 | 7 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Kalkoenfilet has 76% fewer calories (107 kcal vs 442 kcal).
- Kalkoenfilet has 92% less fat (2.9 g vs 36 g).
- Kalkoenfilet has 94% less saturated fat (0.9 g vs 14 g).
- Kalkoenfilet has 80% less sugar (0.7 g vs 3.5 g).
- Marcassou Marcachouffe zonder look bel has 23% less salt (3.9 g vs 5 g).
- Marcassou Marcachouffe zonder look bel has 31% more protein (26 g vs 18 g).
Ingredients
Marcassou Marcachouffe zonder look bel
pork meat, salt, maltodextrin, dextrose, spices, aromatic plants, dye: natural mealybug, antioxidant: sodium ascorbate, preservative: sodium nitrite, ferments, smoke,
Kalkoenfilet
81% kalkoenvlees, water, zuurteregelaar (E261, E325, E326, E331), zout, dextrose, kaliumchloride (dieetzout), suiker, natuurlijk aroma, antioxidant (E301), stabilisator (E407), conserveermiddel (E250).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Marcassou Marcachouffe zonder look bel or Kalkoenfilet?
Overall, Kalkoenfilet 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?
Kalkoenfilet has fewer calories: 107 kcal versus 442 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Kalkoenfilet has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 3.5 g per 100 g.