Comparison

Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres vs Sanglier et champignon lait

Overall, Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPavés de sanglier aux 3 poiv...Sanglier et champignon lait
Nutri-Score a d
NOVA group — 4
Calories 124 kcal 684 kcal
Fat 4.1 g 64.6 g
Saturated fat 0.6 g 31.7 g
Sugars 0.7 g 15.1 g
Salt 1.3 g 0.2 g
Fiber — 1.9 g
Protein 19 g 9.2 g
Additives02
AllergensNone listedMilk, Nuts, Sesame seeds, Soybeans

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

Key differences

  • Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has 82% fewer calories (124 kcal vs 684 kcal).
  • Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has 94% less fat (4.1 g vs 64.6 g).
  • Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has 98% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 31.7 g).
  • Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has 95% less sugar (0.7 g vs 15.1 g).
  • Sanglier et champignon lait has 87% less salt (0.2 g vs 1.3 g).
  • Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has 52% more protein (19 g vs 9.2 g).
  • Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Sanglier et champignon lait lists: Milk, Nuts, Sesame seeds, Soybeans.

Ingredients

Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres

Not available.

Sanglier et champignon lait

Pâte de cacao 34 %, poudre de _lait_, beurre de cacao, lécithine de _soja_, _amandes_, sucre, _noisettes_, vanille, _sésame_.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres or Sanglier et champignon lait?

Overall, Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres 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?

Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has fewer calories: 124 kcal versus 684 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Pavés de sanglier aux 3 poivres has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 15.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons