Comparison

Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* vs Cabecero de lomo

Overall, Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 6 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientRôti de Porc - 100 % filet*Cabecero de lomo
Nutri-Score a e
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 122 kcal 270 kcal
Fat 3.1 g 16 g
Saturated fat 1.1 g 6.7 g
Sugars 1.1 g 0.5 g
Salt 0 g 4.4 g
Protein 22.2 g 31 g
Additives34
AllergensCeleryNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* has 55% fewer calories (122 kcal vs 270 kcal).
  • Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* has 81% less fat (3.1 g vs 16 g).
  • Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* has 83% less saturated fat (1.1 g vs 6.7 g).
  • Cabecero de lomo has 55% less sugar (0.5 g vs 1.1 g).
  • Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* has no salt, while Cabecero de lomo has 4.4 g.
  • Cabecero de lomo has 28% more protein (31 g vs 22.2 g).
  • Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* lists: Celery.

Ingredients

Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet*

Filet de porc, sel, bouillons (eau, os de porc, viande de porc, ail, sauge 0.1%, épices), dextrose de maïs, poivre 0.1%, antioxydant : ascorbate de sodium, conservateur : nitrite de sodium, colorant : caramel ordinaire.

Cabecero de lomo

Cabecero de lomo de cerdo, sal, pimentones, dextrosa, antioxidantes (E-331,E-301), aromas, ajo, especias y conservadores (E-250, E-252).

FAQ

Which is healthier: Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* or Cabecero de lomo?

Overall, Rôti de Porc - 100 % filet* 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 Porc - 100 % filet* has fewer calories: 122 kcal versus 270 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Cabecero de lomo has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 1.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons