Poisson au four bordelaise vs Cotolette di nasello
Overall, Cotolette di nasello has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Poisson au four bordelaise | Cotolette di nasello |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 135 kcal | 109 kcal |
| Fat | 6.7 g | 0.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.7 g | 0.3 g |
| Sugars | 0.9 g | 1 g |
| Salt | 1.1 g | 0.4 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | 1.2 g |
| Protein | 12 g | 11.3 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Gluten | Fish, Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Cotolette di nasello has 19% fewer calories (109 kcal vs 135 kcal).
- Cotolette di nasello has 87% less fat (0.9 g vs 6.7 g).
- Cotolette di nasello has 57% less saturated fat (0.3 g vs 0.7 g).
- Cotolette di nasello has 61% less salt (0.4 g vs 1.1 g).
- Cotolette di nasello has 58% more fiber (1.2 g vs 0.5 g).
- Cotolette di nasello has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Cotolette di nasello lists: Fish.
Ingredients
Poisson au four bordelaise
filets de lieu de l'Alaska 75% (poisson pêché dans le Pacifique Nord), eau, huile de colza, farine de froment, épices, herbes aromatique, sel de cuisine, sucre, fècule de pommes de terre, levure, jus de citron en poudre, tomates en poudre
Cotolette di nasello
NASELLO (64%), pangrattato (farina di GRANO, lievito, sale, paprika), farina di GRANO, acqua, amido di GRANO, sale.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Poisson au four bordelaise or Cotolette di nasello?
Overall, Cotolette di nasello 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?
Cotolette di nasello has fewer calories: 109 kcal versus 135 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Poisson au four bordelaise has less sugar: 0.9 g versus 1 g per 100 g.