Comparison

Salamisticks vs Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem

Overall, Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientSalamisticksKabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem
Nutri-Score e d
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 517 kcal 495 kcal
Fat 44 g 42 g
Saturated fat 17 g 17 g
Sugars 1.9 g 1.9 g
Salt 2.7 g 0 g
Protein 24 g 26 g
Additives35
AllergensCelery, Milk, Mustard, SoybeansNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem has 100% less salt (0 g vs 2.7 g).
  • Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Salamisticks lists: Celery, Milk, Mustard, Soybeans.

Ingredients

Salamisticks

Schweinefleisch, Stärke 2,7 Schweinefett, Speisesalz, Gewürze, Gewürzextrakte, Aromen, Schweineprotein 0,5%, Zucker, Antioxidationsmittel: Natriumascorbal, onservierungsstoi. Natriumnitrit, essbare Wursthülle aus Alginat ermittet: Natriumalginat, Stabilisatoren: Cellulose, Calciumchord), Das Produkt kann Spuren von: Sojabohnen, Milch schalenfrüchten, Sellerie und Senf enthalten.

Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem

Veal meat, chicken meat, chicken fat, starch, salt, spices, spice extracts, flavourings, sugar, glucose, antioxidant: sodium ascorbate, preservative: sodium nitrite. Edible casing-gelling agent: sodium alginate, stabilisers: cellulose, calcium chloride. The product may contain: soya, milk, nuts, celery, mustard.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Salamisticks or Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem?

Overall, Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem 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?

Kabanosy Cielęce Z Drobiem has fewer calories: 495 kcal versus 517 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Salamisticks has less sugar: 1.9 g versus 1.9 g per 100 g.

More comparisons