Comparison

Pâté de sardinha vs Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa

Overall, Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPâté de sardinhaPaté ibérico al Pedro Ximéne...
Nutri-Score e d
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 239 kcal 164 kcal
Fat 20 g 6.6 g
Saturated fat 5.1 g 1.1 g
Sugars 2 g 4.1 g
Salt 3.5 g 2.5 g
Protein 9.7 g 4.7 g
Additives10
AllergensFish, SoybeansNone listed

Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).

Key differences

  • Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has 31% fewer calories (164 kcal vs 239 kcal).
  • Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has 67% less fat (6.6 g vs 20 g).
  • Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has 78% less saturated fat (1.1 g vs 5.1 g).
  • Pâté de sardinha has 51% less sugar (2 g vs 4.1 g).
  • Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has 29% less salt (2.5 g vs 3.5 g).
  • Pâté de sardinha has 52% more protein (9.7 g vs 4.7 g).
  • Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Pâté de sardinha lists: Fish, Soybeans.

Ingredients

Pâté de sardinha

70% sardiner (fisk), vand, gulerødder, sojaolie, tomatkoncentrat, kartoffelflager (kartofler, emulgator (mono-og diglycerider af fedtsyrer), safran), 2% spansk makrel (fisk), margarine, salt, logflager, sojamel.

Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Pâté de sardinha or Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa?

Overall, Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa 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?

Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has fewer calories: 164 kcal versus 239 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Pâté de sardinha has less sugar: 2 g versus 4.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons