Pasta Reggia Amatriciana vs Amatriciana sugo
Overall, Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Pasta Reggia Amatriciana | Amatriciana sugo |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 49 kcal | 163 kcal |
| Fat | 1 g | 13 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.3 g | 4.3 g |
| Sugars | 4.6 g | 6.5 g |
| Salt | 1.1 g | 1.5 g |
| Protein | 2.9 g | 3.5 g |
| Additives | 2 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has 70% fewer calories (49 kcal vs 163 kcal).
- Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has 92% less fat (1 g vs 13 g).
- Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has 93% less saturated fat (0.3 g vs 4.3 g).
- Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has 29% less sugar (4.6 g vs 6.5 g).
- Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has 27% less salt (1.1 g vs 1.5 g).
- Amatriciana sugo has 17% more protein (3.5 g vs 2.9 g).
- Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Pasta Reggia Amatriciana
Домитен пулп 67%, свинско шкембе 15%, доматен концентрат, лук 4,2%, слънчогледово масло Маслиново масло Екстра Върджин, сол, захар, червено вино, сгъстител: модифицирано Царевично нишесте; чесън, микс от подправки, магданоз 0,1%, лют червен пипер, ароматизанти, антиоксидант: аскорбинова киселина; регулатор на киселинността; млечна киселина.
Amatriciana sugo
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Pasta Reggia Amatriciana or Amatriciana sugo?
Overall, Pasta Reggia Amatriciana 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?
Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has fewer calories: 49 kcal versus 163 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pasta Reggia Amatriciana has less sugar: 4.6 g versus 6.5 g per 100 g.