Nautica - Filet de hareng vs Rollmops
Overall, Rollmops has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nautica - Filet de hareng
Rollmops
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Nautica - Filet de hareng | Rollmops |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 154 kcal | 161 kcal |
| Fat | 10 g | 10.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 4.1 g | 2.8 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 2.3 g |
| Salt | 3 g | 1.7 g |
| Fiber | 0.2 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 14.9 g | 12.6 g |
| Additives | 0 | 6 |
| Allergens | Fish | Fish, Mustard, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Rollmops has 32% less saturated fat (2.8 g vs 4.1 g).
- Nautica - Filet de hareng has 78% less sugar (0.5 g vs 2.3 g).
- Rollmops has 43% less salt (1.7 g vs 3 g).
- Nautica - Filet de hareng has 15% more protein (14.9 g vs 12.6 g).
- Rollmops has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Rollmops lists: Mustard, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.
Ingredients
Nautica - Filet de hareng
57% hareng (poisson), oignon, eau, 3,5% vinaigre, sel, arôme naturel d'oignon, Pout contenir des traces d'œuf, de lait ot do moutarde.
Rollmops
Filets de _harengs_ marinés 45% (_harengs_ Clupea harengus pêchés en Atlantique Nord-Est, sel, acidifiant : E260), eau, oignons, cornichons, carottes, vinaigre d'alcool 1,7%, sel, sucre, graines de _moutarde_, acidifiant : E260, antioxydant : E330, E300, E223 (_sulfites_), conservateur : E211, édulcorant : E954, arôme.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Nautica - Filet de hareng or Rollmops?
Overall, Rollmops 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?
Nautica - Filet de hareng has fewer calories: 154 kcal versus 161 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Nautica - Filet de hareng has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 2.3 g per 100 g.