Proteins chips vs Pollo alla diavola con patate
Overall, Pollo alla diavola con patate has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 2.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Proteins chips | Pollo alla diavola con patat... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | b |
| NOVA group | 4 | — |
| Calories | 416 kcal | 102 kcal |
| Fat | 5.9 g | 1.4 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.2 g | 0.2 g |
| Sugars | 2.9 g | 0.4 g |
| Salt | 2.8 g | 0.9 g |
| Fiber | 3.8 g | 1.3 g |
| Protein | 50 g | 10 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Soybeans | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Pollo alla diavola con patate has 75% fewer calories (102 kcal vs 416 kcal).
- Pollo alla diavola con patate has 76% less fat (1.4 g vs 5.9 g).
- Pollo alla diavola con patate has 83% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 1.2 g).
- Pollo alla diavola con patate has 86% less sugar (0.4 g vs 2.9 g).
- Pollo alla diavola con patate has 68% less salt (0.9 g vs 2.8 g).
- Proteins chips has 66% more fiber (3.8 g vs 1.3 g).
- Proteins chips has 80% more protein (50 g vs 10 g).
- Pollo alla diavola con patate has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Proteins chips lists: Soybeans.
Ingredients
Proteins chips
Proteine cli SOIA (42%), fave macinate, flocchi di patate, fecola di patate, aroma naturale paprika (6%) tratto di paprika E160c), olio di semi di girasole, sale.
Pollo alla diavola con patate
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Proteins chips or Pollo alla diavola con patate?
Overall, Pollo alla diavola con patate 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?
Pollo alla diavola con patate has fewer calories: 102 kcal versus 416 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Pollo alla diavola con patate has less sugar: 0.4 g versus 2.9 g per 100 g.