Comparison

Salade de pâtes au poulet et aux ecrevisses vs Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut

Overall, Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientSalade de pâtes au poulet et...Salade de riz noir bio, poul...
Nutri-Score c a
NOVA group — —
Calories 170 kcal 139 kcal
Fat 9 g 6 g
Saturated fat 1.5 g 1 g
Sugars 0.9 g 2 g
Salt 1 g 0 g
Protein 6.6 g 9 g
Additives00
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has 18% fewer calories (139 kcal vs 170 kcal).
  • Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has 33% less fat (6 g vs 9 g).
  • Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has 33% less saturated fat (1 g vs 1.5 g).
  • Salade de pâtes au poulet et aux ecrevisses has 55% less sugar (0.9 g vs 2 g).
  • Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has no salt, while Salade de pâtes au poulet et aux ecrevisses has 1 g.
  • Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has 27% more protein (9 g vs 6.6 g).
  • Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Salade de pâtes au poulet et aux ecrevisses

Not available.

Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut

Not available.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Salade de pâtes au poulet et aux ecrevisses or Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut?

Overall, Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut 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?

Salade de riz noir bio, poulet et butternut has fewer calories: 139 kcal versus 170 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Salade de pâtes au poulet et aux ecrevisses has less sugar: 0.9 g versus 2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons