Riz au poulet et champignons vs Paté Pollo Asado
Overall, Riz au poulet et champignons has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Riz au poulet et champignons | Paté Pollo Asado |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | c | d |
| NOVA group | — | 4 |
| Calories | 159 kcal | 213 kcal |
| Fat | 4.9 g | 13.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.7 g | 1.7 g |
| Sugars | 0.7 g | 1.7 g |
| Salt | 0.8 g | 2.1 g |
| Fiber | 0.8 g | — |
| Protein | 7 g | 12 g |
| Additives | 0 | 5 |
| Allergens | None listed | Milk, Soybeans |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Riz au poulet et champignons has 25% fewer calories (159 kcal vs 213 kcal).
- Riz au poulet et champignons has 65% less fat (4.9 g vs 13.9 g).
- Riz au poulet et champignons has 59% less sugar (0.7 g vs 1.7 g).
- Riz au poulet et champignons has 62% less salt (0.8 g vs 2.1 g).
- Paté Pollo Asado has 42% more protein (12 g vs 7 g).
- Riz au poulet et champignons has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Paté Pollo Asado lists: Milk, Soybeans.
Ingredients
Riz au poulet et champignons
Not available.
Paté Pollo Asado
Frango (40%), óleo de girassol, puré de batata, leite desnatado, sal, proteina de soja, xarope de glucose, dextrose, estabilizadores (carragenina, trifosfato pentassódico), especiarias, aromas, extrato de especiarias, antioxidante (ascorbato de sódio), conservante (nitrito de sódio).
FAQ
Which is healthier: Riz au poulet et champignons or Paté Pollo Asado?
Overall, Riz au poulet et champignons 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?
Riz au poulet et champignons has fewer calories: 159 kcal versus 213 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Riz au poulet et champignons has less sugar: 0.7 g versus 1.7 g per 100 g.