Comparison

Riz basmati vs Taureau aile doypack basmasti epices du monde 220g

Overall, Riz basmati has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRiz basmatiTaureau aile doypack basmast...
Nutri-Score b b
NOVA group — 4
Calories 346 kcal 132 kcal
Fat 0.7 g 2.3 g
Saturated fat 0.1 g 0.2 g
Sugars 0.5 g 0 g
Salt 0 g 0.4 g
Fiber 1.9 g 0.6 g
Protein 8.8 g 2.6 g
Additives02
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Taureau aile doypack basmasti epices du monde 220g has 62% fewer calories (132 kcal vs 346 kcal).
  • Riz basmati has 70% less fat (0.7 g vs 2.3 g).
  • Taureau aile doypack basmasti epices du monde 220g has no sugar, while Riz basmati has 0.5 g.
  • Riz basmati has 98% less salt (0 g vs 0.4 g).
  • Riz basmati has 68% more fiber (1.9 g vs 0.6 g).
  • Riz basmati has 70% more protein (8.8 g vs 2.6 g).

Ingredients

Riz basmati

/riz basmati Transformé et conditionné en France à partir de matière première d'Inde ou du Pakistan,

Taureau aile doypack basmasti epices du monde 220g

Riz basmati étuvé précuit à la vapeur 93%, oignon, huile de tournesol, épices (gingembre 0,9%, graines de cumin 0,4%, ail, poivre noir 0,02%), sel, arômes naturels, émulsifiant: lécithine de tournesol. Conditionné sous atmosphère protectrice Origine du riz: Inde

FAQ

Which is healthier: Riz basmati or Taureau aile doypack basmasti epices du monde 220g?

Overall, Riz basmati 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?

Taureau aile doypack basmasti epices du monde 220g has fewer calories: 132 kcal versus 346 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Taureau aile doypack basmasti epices du monde 220g has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons