Pommes de terre sautées vs Pommes grenaille miel romarin
Overall, Pommes de terre sautées has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 1.
Pommes de terre sautées
Pommes grenaille miel romarin
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Pommes de terre sautées | Pommes grenaille miel romari... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | c |
| NOVA group | — | 3 |
| Calories | 88 kcal | 151 kcal |
| Fat | 2.4 g | 5.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.2 g | 3.1 g |
| Sugars | 0.9 g | 2.9 g |
| Salt | 0.8 g | 0.6 g |
| Fiber | 2 g | 1.6 g |
| Protein | 1.8 g | 2.3 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Fish, Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pommes de terre sautées has 42% fewer calories (88 kcal vs 151 kcal).
- Pommes de terre sautées has 57% less fat (2.4 g vs 5.6 g).
- Pommes de terre sautées has 94% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 3.1 g).
- Pommes de terre sautées has 69% less sugar (0.9 g vs 2.9 g).
- Pommes de terre sautées has 21% more fiber (2 g vs 1.6 g).
- Pommes grenaille miel romarin has 22% more protein (2.3 g vs 1.8 g).
- Only Pommes grenaille miel romarin lists: Fish, Milk.
Ingredients
Pommes de terre sautées
Not available.
Pommes grenaille miel romarin
Pommes de terre préfrites 88% (pommes de terre, huile de tournesol), beurre 6,0%, eau, miel toutes fleurs 1,5%, romarin 0,70%, sel. Traces éventuelles de blé, céleri, soja, eufs, fruits à coque, poissons.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Pommes de terre sautées or Pommes grenaille miel romarin?
Overall, Pommes de terre sautées 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?
Pommes de terre sautées has fewer calories: 88 kcal versus 151 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pommes de terre sautées has less sugar: 0.9 g versus 2.9 g per 100 g.