Patas de pulpo cocido vs Chico Miko
Overall, Patas de pulpo cocido has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Patas de pulpo cocido | Chico Miko |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | e |
| NOVA group | 1 | — |
| Calories | 75 kcal | 489 kcal |
| Fat | 0.8 g | 23.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.2 g | 13.1 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 36.9 g |
| Salt | 0.6 g | 0.6 g |
| Fiber | — | 2.3 g |
| Protein | 17 g | 6.8 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Molluscs | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Patas de pulpo cocido has 85% fewer calories (75 kcal vs 489 kcal).
- Patas de pulpo cocido has 97% less fat (0.8 g vs 23.6 g).
- Patas de pulpo cocido has 98% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 13.1 g).
- Patas de pulpo cocido has no sugar, while Chico Miko has 36.9 g.
- Patas de pulpo cocido has 60% more protein (17 g vs 6.8 g).
- Patas de pulpo cocido has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Patas de pulpo cocido lists: Molluscs.
Ingredients
Patas de pulpo cocido
Pulpo (Octopus vulgaris) (moluscos). Puede contener pescado y/o crustáceos. LISTO PARA CONSUMIR.
Chico Miko
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Patas de pulpo cocido or Chico Miko?
Overall, Patas de pulpo cocido 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?
Patas de pulpo cocido has fewer calories: 75 kcal versus 489 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Patas de pulpo cocido has less sugar: 0 g versus 36.9 g per 100 g.