Comparison

Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g vs Rôti de Dinde - x4 tranches, 160g

Overall, Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRoti de dinde sup 4t 160gRôti de Dinde - x4 tranches,...
Nutri-Score a b
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 121 kcal 104 kcal
Fat 2.9 g 1.9 g
Saturated fat 1 g 0.6 g
Sugars 0.5 g 0.8 g
Salt 1.4 g 1.7 g
Fiber 0.3 g 0.5 g
Protein 23 g 21 g
Additives12
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Rôti de Dinde - x4 tranches, 160g has 14% fewer calories (104 kcal vs 121 kcal).
  • Rôti de Dinde - x4 tranches, 160g has 34% less fat (1.9 g vs 2.9 g).
  • Rôti de Dinde - x4 tranches, 160g has 40% less saturated fat (0.6 g vs 1 g).
  • Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g has 38% less sugar (0.5 g vs 0.8 g).
  • Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g has 18% less salt (1.4 g vs 1.7 g).
  • Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g

Filet de dinde (origine : France), sel, arômes naturels, bouillon de volaille, sirop de glucose, conservateur : nitrite desodium ; ; colorant : caramel ordinaire

Rôti de Dinde - x4 tranches, 160g

Viande de filets de dinde (origine : France) 87%, eau, sel, dextrose, conservateur : nitrite de sodium, colorant : caramel ordinaire. traces éventuelles de céréales contenant du gluten, de lait et d'oeufs.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g or Rôti de Dinde - x4 tranches, 160g?

Overall, Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g 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?

Rôti de Dinde - x4 tranches, 160g has fewer calories: 104 kcal versus 121 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Roti de dinde sup 4t 160g has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.8 g per 100 g.

More comparisons