Sauce apéritif tomate basilic vs Aïoli et rouille
Overall, Aïoli et rouille has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 3 of our comparison points versus 1.
Sauce apéritif tomate basilic
Aïoli et rouille
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Sauce apéritif tomate basili... | Aïoli et rouille |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | — | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 420 kcal | 444 kcal |
| Fat | 43.6 g | 45 g |
| Saturated fat | 12 g | 6 g |
| Sugars | 3.4 g | 2 g |
| Salt | 1.2 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | 0.3 g | — |
| Protein | 1.9 g | 3 g |
| Additives | 2 | 2 |
| Allergens | Eggs, Milk | Eggs, Gluten, Milk, Mustard |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Aïoli et rouille has 50% less saturated fat (6 g vs 12 g).
- Aïoli et rouille has 41% less sugar (2 g vs 3.4 g).
- Sauce apéritif tomate basilic has 23% less salt (1.2 g vs 1.5 g).
- Aïoli et rouille has 37% more protein (3 g vs 1.9 g).
- Only Aïoli et rouille lists: Gluten, Mustard.
Ingredients
Sauce apéritif tomate basilic
huile de tournesol, lait, tomate 12,9%, vinaigre d'alcool, basilic 2,4%, sucre, jaune d'oeuf, sel, gommes de xanthane et de guar, jus concentré de citron.
Aïoli et rouille
Huile de tournesol, lait, ail 5,6%, jaune d'oeuf, épices rouille 3,5%, paprika, jus concentré de citron, gommes de xanthane et de guar, sel, piment de Cayenne, poivre. Contient moutarde, gluten, lait. Traces éventuelles de céleri, oeuf, soja, sésame, lupin et fruits à coque.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Sauce apéritif tomate basilic or Aïoli et rouille?
Overall, Aïoli et rouille 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?
Sauce apéritif tomate basilic has fewer calories: 420 kcal versus 444 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Aïoli et rouille has less sugar: 2 g versus 3.4 g per 100 g.