Mousse de canard au sauternes 2 x 50 gr vs Lot Mousse Canard
Overall, Lot Mousse Canard has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 1.
Mousse de canard au sauternes 2 x 50 gr
Lot Mousse Canard
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Mousse de canard au sauterne... | Lot Mousse Canard |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 405 kcal | 395 kcal |
| Fat | 41 g | 39 g |
| Saturated fat | 15 g | 14 g |
| Sugars | 1.8 g | 1.1 g |
| Salt | 1.5 g | 1.7 g |
| Fiber | 0.6 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 9.2 g | 10 g |
| Additives | 3 | 0 |
| Allergens | Eggs, Milk | Eggs, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Lot Mousse Canard has 39% less sugar (1.1 g vs 1.8 g).
- Mousse de canard au sauternes 2 x 50 gr has 100% more fiber (0.6 g vs 0 g).
- Lot Mousse Canard is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Mousse de canard au sauternes 2 x 50 gr
Gras de porc, foie maigrede canard 22% (origine : UE et non UE (Royaume-Uni)), saindoux, lait, graisse de canard, foie de dinde (origine : UE), crèmefraiche (dont lait),œufs, amidon de maïs, sel, Sauternes (0,8%), Porto rouge modifié salé (Porto rouge, sel), sucre, épices,colorant : caroténoïdes ; ; conservateur : nitrite de sodium ; ; antioxydant:ascorbate de sodium.
Lot Mousse Canard
Canard* (68 %) (foie maigre de canard, graisse de canard), lait, jaune d'œuf, crème, Porto, sel de mer, sucre, épices. *Origine : France.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Mousse de canard au sauternes 2 x 50 gr or Lot Mousse Canard?
Overall, Lot Mousse Canard 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?
Lot Mousse Canard has fewer calories: 395 kcal versus 405 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Lot Mousse Canard has less sugar: 1.1 g versus 1.8 g per 100 g.