Riso rosso integrale vs Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino
Overall, Riso rosso integrale has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.
Riso rosso integrale
Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Riso rosso integrale | Risotto con pomodoro ciliegi... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | d |
| NOVA group | — | — |
| Calories | 344 kcal | 339 kcal |
| Fat | 2.9 g | 0.8 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.8 g | 0.2 g |
| Sugars | 1.1 g | 2.6 g |
| Salt | 0 g | 2.2 g |
| Fiber | 3.8 g | 1.5 g |
| Protein | 7.6 g | 6.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino has 72% less fat (0.8 g vs 2.9 g).
- Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino has 75% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 0.8 g).
- Riso rosso integrale has 58% less sugar (1.1 g vs 2.6 g).
- Riso rosso integrale has no salt, while Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino has 2.2 g.
- Riso rosso integrale has 61% more fiber (3.8 g vs 1.5 g).
- Riso rosso integrale has 14% more protein (7.6 g vs 6.5 g).
- Riso rosso integrale has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Riso rosso integrale
Not available.
Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Riso rosso integrale or Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino?
Overall, Riso rosso integrale 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?
Risotto con pomodoro ciliegino IGP Pomodoro di pachino has fewer calories: 339 kcal versus 344 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Riso rosso integrale has less sugar: 1.1 g versus 2.6 g per 100 g.