Comparison

Poêlée à l'asiatique vs Findus Wok Bali

Overall, Poêlée à l'asiatique has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientPoêlée à l'asiatiqueFindus Wok Bali
Nutri-Score a b
NOVA group 4 —
Calories 51 kcal 27 kcal
Fat 2.4 g 0.5 g
Saturated fat 0.3 g 0.1 g
Sugars 1.3 g 1.5 g
Salt 0.7 g 0.5 g
Fiber 3.1 g 2.5 g
Protein 2.7 g 1.4 g
Additives10
AllergensFish, SoybeansNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Findus Wok Bali has 47% fewer calories (27 kcal vs 51 kcal).
  • Findus Wok Bali has 79% less fat (0.5 g vs 2.4 g).
  • Poêlée à l'asiatique has 19% more fiber (3.1 g vs 2.5 g).
  • Poêlée à l'asiatique has 48% more protein (2.7 g vs 1.4 g).
  • Poêlée à l'asiatique has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Poêlée à l'asiatique lists: Fish, Soybeans.

Ingredients

Poêlée à l'asiatique

Carottes 34,3%, poivrons rouges 15,4%, courgettes 15,3%, pousses de haricots mungo 11%, champignons noirs 8%, fèves de _soja_ 8%, eau, huile de tournesol, arôme naturel, ail en poudre, coriandre, sauce Nuoc Mam (extrait d'_anchois_, sel, sucre), sel, gingembre, épaississant : gomme xanthane, poivre. Peut contenir des traces de céréales contenant du gluten, d'œufs, de lait, de fruits à coque, de crustacés, de moutarde, de céleri, de graines de sésame ainsi que leurs dérivés.

Findus Wok Bali

tao Green beans & Water cheStnuts PREPARATION rapid / )uick frozen

FAQ

Which is healthier: Poêlée à l'asiatique or Findus Wok Bali?

Overall, Poêlée à l'asiatique 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?

Findus Wok Bali has fewer calories: 27 kcal versus 51 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Poêlée à l'asiatique has less sugar: 1.3 g versus 1.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons