Comparison

Rognons de bœuf vs Rognons de bœuf sauce madère

Overall, Rognons de bœuf has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRognons de bœufRognons de bœuf sauce madère
Nutri-Score c c
NOVA group — 4
Calories 116 kcal 116 kcal
Fat 4.3 g 6.3 g
Saturated fat 1.6 g 3.8 g
Sugars 1.5 g 2.1 g
Salt 1 g 1.3 g
Fiber — 0.8 g
Protein 15.6 g 11.4 g
Additives04
AllergensNone listedMilk, Mustard, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites

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

Key differences

  • Rognons de bœuf has 32% less fat (4.3 g vs 6.3 g).
  • Rognons de bœuf has 58% less saturated fat (1.6 g vs 3.8 g).
  • Rognons de bœuf has 29% less sugar (1.5 g vs 2.1 g).
  • Rognons de bœuf has 25% less salt (1 g vs 1.3 g).
  • Rognons de bœuf has 27% more protein (15.6 g vs 11.4 g).
  • Only Rognons de bœuf sauce madère lists: Milk, Mustard, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.

Ingredients

Rognons de bœuf

Not available.

Rognons de bœuf sauce madère

Rognons de bœuf 30%, eau, madère 17,5%, _crème_ (_lait_), champignons 5,5%, échalotes, arômes, _beurre_ concentré, fond de veau (os, viande et graisse de veau, eau), amidon modifié, sel, huile de tournesol, _moutarde_ (eau, graines de _moutarde_, vinaigre, sel, conservateur : _bisulfite_ de sodium), maltodextrine, gélifiant : gomme xanthane, colorant : E150c, sel, extrait de levure, oignons, concentré de carottes, tomates, poivre.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Rognons de bœuf or Rognons de bœuf sauce madère?

Overall, Rognons de bœuf 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?

Rognons de bœuf sauce madère has fewer calories: 116 kcal versus 116 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Rognons de bœuf has less sugar: 1.5 g versus 2.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons