Comparison

R / Confit F.vol 180G vs Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei

Overall, Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientR / Confit F.vol 180GOvnsbakt kyllingpostei
Nutri-Score e c
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 352 kcal 153 kcal
Fat 33.2 g 8.6 g
Saturated fat 13.2 g 2.4 g
Sugars 0.5 g 1.1 g
Salt 1.5 g 1.5 g
Fiber 0.3 g —
Protein 11.3 g 12 g
Additives05
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei has 57% fewer calories (153 kcal vs 352 kcal).
  • Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei has 74% less fat (8.6 g vs 33.2 g).
  • Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei has 82% less saturated fat (2.4 g vs 13.2 g).
  • R / Confit F.vol 180G has 55% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.1 g).
  • Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei has the better Nutri-Score.
  • R / Confit F.vol 180G is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

R / Confit F.vol 180G

Foie de poulet (Origine : France) 46 %, gras de porc 28 %, gorge de porc (Origine : France) 20 %, porto rouge 3 %, sel, poivre. Traces de moutarde, lait et oeufs.

Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei

Kyllinglever (35 %), vann, maskinelt utbeinet kyllingkjøtt (16%), kalkun og kyllingkjøtt (13 %), kyllingskinn, potetstivelse, salt, dekstrose, løk, løkekstrakt, krydder (inkl. hvitløk, paprika), konserveringsmiddel E250, konsistensmiddel E410, E412, E415, E460, modifisert stivelse (mais) E1422, antioksidant E315.

FAQ

Which is healthier: R / Confit F.vol 180G or Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei?

Overall, Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei 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?

Ovnsbakt kyllingpostei has fewer calories: 153 kcal versus 352 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

R / Confit F.vol 180G has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons