Rôti de Poulet - 100% filet vs Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti
Overall, Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.
Rôti de Poulet - 100% filet
Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Rôti de Poulet - 100% filet | Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | d | b |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 109 kcal | 112 kcal |
| Fat | 2.2 g | 2 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.7 g | 0.6 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 2.3 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 22 g | 23 g |
| Additives | 2 | 2 |
| Allergens | Celery | Celery |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti has 34% less salt (1.5 g vs 2.3 g).
- Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti has the better Nutri-Score.
Ingredients
Rôti de Poulet - 100% filet
Filet de poulet 98%, bouillon (eau, os de poulet, ail, carotte, _céleri_, épices, oignon, poireau), sel, dextrose, arômes naturels (présence naturelle de polyphénols), extrait de levure, poivre 0.1%, antioxydant: acide ascorbique, colorant : caramel ordinaire.
Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti
Filet de poulet, bouillons [eau, huile infusée de romarin (huile de colza, romarin), os de poulet, plantes aromatiques, épices, _céleri_, carotte, poireau, oignon], sel, dextrose, arômes naturels (présence naturelle de polyphénols), antioxydant : acide ascorbique, colorant : caramel ordinaire. Viande de poulet d'origine UE.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Rôti de Poulet - 100% filet or Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti?
Overall, Filet de poulet 🐔 rôti 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 Poulet - 100% filet has fewer calories: 109 kcal versus 112 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Rôti de Poulet - 100% filet has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.