Pate ibérico al pedro ximenez 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.
Pate ibérico al pedro ximenez
Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Pate ibérico al pedro ximene... | Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximéne... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 250 kcal | 164 kcal |
| Fat | 19.7 g | 6.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 6.7 g | 1.1 g |
| Sugars | 5.2 g | 4.1 g |
| Salt | 1.9 g | 2.5 g |
| Protein | 9.4 g | 4.7 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None 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 34% fewer calories (164 kcal vs 250 kcal).
- Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has 66% less fat (6.6 g vs 19.7 g).
- Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has 84% less saturated fat (1.1 g vs 6.7 g).
- Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has 21% less sugar (4.1 g vs 5.2 g).
- Pate ibérico al pedro ximenez has 24% less salt (1.9 g vs 2.5 g).
- Pate ibérico al pedro ximenez has 50% more protein (9.4 g vs 4.7 g).
- Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Pate ibérico al pedro ximenez
Not available.
Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Pate ibérico al pedro ximenez 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 250 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Paté ibérico al Pedro Ximénez con pasa has less sugar: 4.1 g versus 5.2 g per 100 g.