Comparison

Rollmops au Vinaigre vs Rollmops

Overall, Rollmops has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRollmops au VinaigreRollmops
Nutri-Score e d
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 152 kcal 102 kcal
Fat 10.3 g 5.6 g
Saturated fat 1.7 g 1.4 g
Sugars 0 g 4.5 g
Salt 3.6 g 3 g
Fiber 0 g 0.2 g
Protein 14.8 g 13 g
Additives10
AllergensFish, MustardFish, Sulphur dioxide and sulphites

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

Key differences

  • Rollmops has 33% fewer calories (102 kcal vs 152 kcal).
  • Rollmops has 46% less fat (5.6 g vs 10.3 g).
  • Rollmops has 18% less saturated fat (1.4 g vs 1.7 g).
  • Rollmops au Vinaigre has no sugar, while Rollmops has 4.5 g.
  • Rollmops has 17% less salt (3 g vs 3.6 g).
  • Rollmops au Vinaigre has 12% more protein (14.8 g vs 13 g).
  • Rollmops has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Rollmops is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Rollmops au Vinaigre lists: Mustard.
  • Only Rollmops lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.

Ingredients

Rollmops au Vinaigre

Rollmops 60% (filets de harengs 80% - Clupea Harengus Pecne en Atlantique Nord-Est FAO 27 : Mer du Nord ou Ouest Ecosse par filets (incluant chaluts et dragues), cornichons 20%), eau, vinaigre d'alcool (20) 3%, sel, graines de _moutarde_, oignon, arôme, édulcorant : saccharine.

Rollmops

Filets de harengs* 44% (Clupea harengus), eau, oignons (sulfites) 8%, sucre, vinaigre, cornichons, sel, épices

FAQ

Which is healthier: Rollmops au Vinaigre or Rollmops?

Overall, Rollmops 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?

Rollmops has fewer calories: 102 kcal versus 152 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Rollmops au Vinaigre has less sugar: 0 g versus 4.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons