Comparison

Mini gratin de legumes vs Gratin duo de choux

Overall, Gratin duo de choux has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientMini gratin de legumesGratin duo de choux
Nutri-Score c c
NOVA group 3 3
Calories 91 kcal 81 kcal
Fat 5.7 g 4.9 g
Saturated fat 3.5 g 3.3 g
Sugars 2.2 g 0.5 g
Salt 0.5 g 0.5 g
Fiber 2.2 g 2 g
Protein 2.3 g 4.1 g
Additives00
AllergensEggs, MilkMilk

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

Key differences

  • Gratin duo de choux has 11% fewer calories (81 kcal vs 91 kcal).
  • Gratin duo de choux has 14% less fat (4.9 g vs 5.7 g).
  • Gratin duo de choux has 77% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2.2 g).
  • Gratin duo de choux has 44% more protein (4.1 g vs 2.3 g).
  • Only Mini gratin de legumes lists: Eggs.

Ingredients

Mini gratin de legumes

Carotte jaune 19,9%, carotte orange 19,9%, brocoli 16%, courgette 14%, crème fraîche liquide (LAIT), OEUF entier issu de poule élevée en plein air 6,9% (liquide, pasteurisé), eau, fécule de pomme de terre, amidon de pomme de terre, emmental français (contient LAIT) 1,5%, sel, persil, ail déshydraté, poivre blanc. Peut contenir des traces de: gluten, poisson, soja, céleri.

Gratin duo de choux

Chou-fleur* 30,7%, brocoli* 25,2%, eau, emmental français râpé* 6,8% (contient lait), crème fraîche pasteurisée* 4,3% (lait), oignon*, lait entier en poudre*, amidon de riz*, fécule de manioc*, beurre* (lait), sel.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Mini gratin de legumes or Gratin duo de choux?

Overall, Gratin duo de choux 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?

Gratin duo de choux has fewer calories: 81 kcal versus 91 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Gratin duo de choux has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons