Pilchards de harengs vs Pilchards de harengs à la tomate et à l'huile
Overall, Pilchards de harengs has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.
Pilchards de harengs
Pilchards de harengs à la tomate et à l'huile
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Pilchards de harengs | Pilchards de harengs à la to... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | c |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 164 kcal | 195 kcal |
| Fat | 12 g | 15 g |
| Saturated fat | 3.1 g | 3.3 g |
| Sugars | 0.9 g | 1.3 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 1.1 g |
| Fiber | 0.3 g | 0.3 g |
| Protein | 13 g | 13 g |
| Additives | 2 | 2 |
| Allergens | Fish | Fish |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pilchards de harengs has 16% fewer calories (164 kcal vs 195 kcal).
- Pilchards de harengs has 20% less fat (12 g vs 15 g).
- Pilchards de harengs has 31% less sugar (0.9 g vs 1.3 g).
Ingredients
Pilchards de harengs
harengs 70%, eau, double concentré de tomates 6%, huile de colza 3,1%, sel, vinaigre de vin blanc, vinaigre de vin rouge, amidon modifié de maïs, sucre, oignons, épaississant (gomme xanthane), arôme naturel de poivre
Pilchards de harengs à la tomate et à l'huile
Harengs (Clupea harengus) 70%, eau, double concentré de tomate 6%, huile de colza 3.1%, sel, vinaigre de vin blanc, vinaigre de vin rouge, amidon transformé de maïs, sucre, oignon en poudre, épaississant : gomme de xanthane, arome naturel de poivre.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Pilchards de harengs or Pilchards de harengs à la tomate et à l'huile?
Overall, Pilchards de harengs 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?
Pilchards de harengs has fewer calories: 164 kcal versus 195 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pilchards de harengs has less sugar: 0.9 g versus 1.3 g per 100 g.