Œufs de Truite vs Œufs de Lompe
Overall, Œufs de Truite has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Œufs de Truite | Œufs de Lompe |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 194 kcal | 78 kcal |
| Fat | 10 g | 3.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.5 g | 1.3 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 3 g | 4 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 24 g | 11 g |
| Additives | 0 | 9 |
| Allergens | Crustaceans, Fish, Milk | Fish |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Œufs de Lompe has 60% fewer calories (78 kcal vs 194 kcal).
- Œufs de Lompe has 65% less fat (3.5 g vs 10 g).
- Œufs de Truite has no sugar, while Œufs de Lompe has 0.5 g.
- Œufs de Truite has 25% less salt (3 g vs 4 g).
- Œufs de Truite has 54% more protein (24 g vs 11 g).
- Œufs de Truite has the better Nutri-Score.
- Œufs de Truite is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Œufs de Truite lists: Crustaceans, Milk.
Ingredients
Œufs de Truite
96,5% arufs de truite (poissons), sel, Traces éventuelles de molusques, de crustacés, de lait, de sulfites et de céréales cotenant du gluten,
Œufs de Lompe
Œufs de lompe (_poisson_) salés 84% (Œufs de lompe (_poisson_) 80% (Cyclopterus lumpus), sel, antioxydant : extrait de romarin), eau, stabilisants : gomme xanthane et glycérol, colorants: complexes cuivre-chlorophylles et cuivre-chlorophyllines, noir brillant PN, caramel au sulfite d'ammonium et anthocyanes.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Œufs de Truite or Œufs de Lompe?
Overall, Œufs de Truite 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?
Œufs de Lompe has fewer calories: 78 kcal versus 194 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Œufs de Truite has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.