Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique vs Oeufs de saumon rose du Pacifique
Overall, Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.
Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique
Oeufs de saumon rose du Pacifique
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Oeufs de saumon keta du Paci... | Oeufs de saumon rose du Paci... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 233 kcal | 254 kcal |
| Fat | 9.9 g | 14 g |
| Saturated fat | 2 g | 3.5 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 2.4 g | 3.5 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | — |
| Protein | 31 g | 32 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Fish | Fish |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique has 29% less fat (9.9 g vs 14 g).
- Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique has 43% less saturated fat (2 g vs 3.5 g).
- Oeufs de saumon rose du Pacifique has no sugar, while Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique has 0.5 g.
- Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique has 31% less salt (2.4 g vs 3.5 g).
- Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique
Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique (Oncorhynchus keta) (POISSON) 97%, sel. Traces éventuelles de lait et de céréales contenant du gluten.
Oeufs de saumon rose du Pacifique
Œufs de SAUMON rose du Pacifique MSC 96% (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), sel.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique or Oeufs de saumon rose du Pacifique?
Overall, Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique 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?
Oeufs de saumon keta du Pacifique has fewer calories: 233 kcal versus 254 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Oeufs de saumon rose du Pacifique has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.