Rindersaftschinken vs Sobrasada ibérica
Overall, Rindersaftschinken 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 | Rindersaftschinken | Sobrasada ibérica |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 102 kcal | 596 kcal |
| Fat | 2 g | 60.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.9 g | 21.2 g |
| Sugars | 1 g | 0.8 g |
| Salt | 2.1 g | 2.8 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 20 g | 7.6 g |
| Additives | 3 | 4 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Rindersaftschinken has 83% fewer calories (102 kcal vs 596 kcal).
- Rindersaftschinken has 97% less fat (2 g vs 60.9 g).
- Rindersaftschinken has 96% less saturated fat (0.9 g vs 21.2 g).
- Rindersaftschinken has 24% less salt (2.1 g vs 2.8 g).
- Rindersaftschinken has 62% more protein (20 g vs 7.6 g).
- Rindersaftschinken has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Rindersaftschinken
Rindfleisch, jodiertes Speisesalz (Speisesalz, Kaliumiodat), Dextrose, Gewürzextrakte, Antioxidationsmittel: Natriumascorbat; Stabilisator: Triphosphate; Konservierungsstoff: Natriumnitrit; Buchenholzrauch. Kann Spuren von Senf und Sellerie enthalten.
Sobrasada ibérica
Tocino (con antioxidantes: E-320 y E-321). carne de cerdo y carne de cerdo ibérico (8.5%), pimentén, sal dextrosa, fibra alimentaria, estabilizante (E-451) aroma especias, antioxidante (E-301), conservador (E-2521 y azúcar
FAQ
Which is healthier: Rindersaftschinken or Sobrasada ibérica?
Overall, Rindersaftschinken 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?
Rindersaftschinken has fewer calories: 102 kcal versus 596 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Sobrasada ibérica has less sugar: 0.8 g versus 1 g per 100 g.