Comparison

Moroccan Lamb Tagine vs Lasagna al forno

Overall, Moroccan Lamb Tagine has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientMoroccan Lamb TagineLasagna al forno
Nutri-Score c c
NOVA group 3 —
Calories 114 kcal 179 kcal
Fat 7.2 g 10.4 g
Saturated fat 4.6 g 4.7 g
Sugars 1.8 g 2.4 g
Salt 0.2 g 0.9 g
Fiber 0 g 1.3 g
Protein 8.6 g 11.1 g
Additives00
AllergensGluten, Mustard, Nuts, Peanuts, Soybeans, Sulphur dioxide and sulphitesNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Moroccan Lamb Tagine has 36% fewer calories (114 kcal vs 179 kcal).
  • Moroccan Lamb Tagine has 31% less fat (7.2 g vs 10.4 g).
  • Moroccan Lamb Tagine has 25% less sugar (1.8 g vs 2.4 g).
  • Moroccan Lamb Tagine has 73% less salt (0.2 g vs 0.9 g).
  • Lasagna al forno has 100% more fiber (1.3 g vs 0 g).
  • Lasagna al forno has 23% more protein (11.1 g vs 8.6 g).
  • Only Moroccan Lamb Tagine lists: Gluten, Mustard, Nuts, Peanuts, Soybeans, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.

Ingredients

Moroccan Lamb Tagine

Wing are used: cere Chicken (35%), Cocaut Milk, Water, Onion, Peppers, Satay Marinade(4%) (PEANUTS), Snap Peas (3%), Peanut Butter (2%)(PEANUTS), Cashew Nuts (1%)(NUT), Sunflower Oil, Coriander, Lime, Ginger, Soy Sauce(WHEAT,SOYA), Garlic, Spice Blend Malaysian Satay (MUSTARD, SULPHITES), Chilli, Allergens: Man Also Contain Molloses,

Lasagna al forno

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Moroccan Lamb Tagine or Lasagna al forno?

Overall, Moroccan Lamb Tagine 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?

Moroccan Lamb Tagine has fewer calories: 114 kcal versus 179 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Moroccan Lamb Tagine has less sugar: 1.8 g versus 2.4 g per 100 g.

More comparisons