Peking duck sauce vs Confit de canard
Overall, Confit de canard has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Peking duck sauce | Confit de canard |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 248 kcal | 283 kcal |
| Fat | 6.4 g | 20 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.3 g | 6.3 g |
| Sugars | 43 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 4.4 g | 1.4 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 2.6 g | 25 g |
| Additives | 4 | 0 |
| Allergens | Gluten, Sesame seeds, Soybeans | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Peking duck sauce has 12% fewer calories (248 kcal vs 283 kcal).
- Peking duck sauce has 68% less fat (6.4 g vs 20 g).
- Peking duck sauce has 79% less saturated fat (1.3 g vs 6.3 g).
- Confit de canard has 99% less sugar (0.5 g vs 43 g).
- Confit de canard has 68% less salt (1.4 g vs 4.4 g).
- Confit de canard has 90% more protein (25 g vs 2.6 g).
- Confit de canard has the better Nutri-Score.
- Confit de canard is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Peking duck sauce lists: Gluten, Sesame seeds, Soybeans.
Ingredients
Peking duck sauce
Sucre, Pâte De Soja Fermenté (Eau, Sel, soja, Farine De Blé), Eau, Pâte Concentrée De Tomate, Prune Salée, Pâte De Graines De Sésame, Huile De Soja, Colorant E150a, Amidon De Maïs Modifié, Épices, Stabilisant E415 (Soja, Blé), Exhausteurs De Goût (E631, E627).
Confit de canard
Cuisses de canard, graisse de canard, sel
FAQ
Which is healthier: Peking duck sauce or Confit de canard?
Overall, Confit de canard 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?
Peking duck sauce has fewer calories: 248 kcal versus 283 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Confit de canard has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 43 g per 100 g.