Comparison

Rillettes de Poulet Rôti en cocotte vs RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g massif TRAD - FRANCE

Overall, RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g massif TRAD - FRANCE has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 1 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRillettes de Poulet Rôti en...RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g m...
Nutri-Score d d
NOVA group 3 3
Calories 328 kcal 336 kcal
Fat 29 g 29 g
Saturated fat 9.2 g 9.2 g
Sugars 0.5 g 0.5 g
Salt 1 g 1.2 g
Fiber 0.1 g 0.5 g
Protein 16.3 g 18 g
Additives00
AllergensNone listedAnhydride sulfureux et sulfites en concentrations de plus de 10 mg/kg ou 10 mg/litre expr. en SO2

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

Key differences

  • RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g massif TRAD - FRANCE has 74% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0.1 g).
  • Only RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g massif TRAD - FRANCE lists: Anhydride sulfureux et sulfites en concentrations de plus de 10 mg/kg ou 10 mg/litre expr. en SO2.

Ingredients

Rillettes de Poulet Rôti en cocotte

viande de poulet (90 %),graisse de canard, aromates, carottes, sel, poivre.

RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g massif TRAD - FRANCE

Viande de poulet (origine : France), graisse de canard, peau de poulet (origine : France), carottes, échalotes semoule, pulpe d'oignons déshydratée, miel, sel, poivre.103g de poulet ont été utilisés pour fabriquer 100g de rillettes.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Rillettes de Poulet Rôti en cocotte or RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g massif TRAD - FRANCE?

Overall, RILLETTES POULET ROTI 220g massif TRAD - FRANCE 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?

Rillettes de Poulet Rôti en cocotte has fewer calories: 328 kcal versus 336 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Rillettes de Poulet Rôti en cocotte has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons