Comparison

Riz Tikka Massala vs Riz à la Méditerranéenne

Overall, Riz Tikka Massala has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRiz Tikka MassalaRiz à la Méditerranéenne
Nutri-Score a c
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 152 kcal 164 kcal
Fat 4.8 g 3.3 g
Saturated fat 1.4 g 0.4 g
Sugars 2 g 2.1 g
Salt 0.7 g 0.5 g
Fiber 5.4 g 1.3 g
Protein 7.4 g 3.7 g
Additives01
AllergensSoybeansNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Riz à la Méditerranéenne has 31% less fat (3.3 g vs 4.8 g).
  • Riz à la Méditerranéenne has 71% less saturated fat (0.4 g vs 1.4 g).
  • Riz Tikka Massala has 76% more fiber (5.4 g vs 1.3 g).
  • Riz Tikka Massala has 50% more protein (7.4 g vs 3.7 g).
  • Riz Tikka Massala has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Riz Tikka Massala is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Riz Tikka Massala lists: Soybeans.

Ingredients

Riz Tikka Massala

Eau, riz basmati complet précuit* 29,3%, protéines de _soja_ texturées* 11,9%, tomates* 3,6%, concentré de tomate* 3,4%, lait de coco*, huile de colza*, raisins séchés* 2%, épices*, oignons*, jus de citron*, sel de mer, coriandre*.

Riz à la Méditerranéenne

Riz long grain étuvé à la vapeur (86%), double concentré de purée de tomates (5,9%), huile de tournesol, poudre de tomates (2,5%), basilic, arôme naturel, sel, sucre, extrait de levure, oignons en poudre, herbes, acidifiant (acide citrique), ail en poudre, épice.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Riz Tikka Massala or Riz à la Méditerranéenne?

Overall, Riz Tikka Massala 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 Tikka Massala has fewer calories: 152 kcal versus 164 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Riz Tikka Massala has less sugar: 2 g versus 2.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons