Riz Tikka Massala vs Trio de riz
Overall, Riz Tikka Massala has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 3.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Riz Tikka Massala | Trio de riz |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | c |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 152 kcal | 174 kcal |
| Fat | 4.8 g | 1.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.4 g | 0.6 g |
| Sugars | 2 g | 0 g |
| Salt | 0.7 g | 0.7 g |
| Fiber | 5.4 g | 2.4 g |
| Protein | 7.4 g | 3.6 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Soybeans | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Riz Tikka Massala has 13% fewer calories (152 kcal vs 174 kcal).
- Trio de riz has 67% less fat (1.6 g vs 4.8 g).
- Trio de riz has 57% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 1.4 g).
- Trio de riz has no sugar, while Riz Tikka Massala has 2 g.
- Riz Tikka Massala has 56% more fiber (5.4 g vs 2.4 g).
- Riz Tikka Massala has 51% more protein (7.4 g vs 3.6 g).
- Riz Tikka Massala has the better Nutri-Score.
- 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*.
Trio de riz
Eau, riz* long blanc étuvé 32,7%, riz* rouge complet précuit 14,5%, riz* noir étuvé précuit 7,3%, huile d'olive* extra vierge, sel de mer. *Ingrédients issus de l'agriculture biologique.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Riz Tikka Massala or Trio de riz?
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 174 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Trio de riz has less sugar: 0 g versus 2 g per 100 g.