Saucisson Au Beaufort vs Saucisson au beaufort
Overall, Saucisson au beaufort has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Saucisson Au Beaufort | Saucisson au beaufort |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | e |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 418 kcal | 422 kcal |
| Fat | 34 g | 33.9 g |
| Saturated fat | 13 g | 14.2 g |
| Sugars | 1 g | 0.2 g |
| Salt | 4.4 g | 4.8 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 26 g | 28.9 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | Milk | Milk |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Saucisson au beaufort has 80% less sugar (0.2 g vs 1 g).
- Saucisson au beaufort has 10% more protein (28.9 g vs 26 g).
Ingredients
Saucisson Au Beaufort
Viande de porc (144 g mis en ?uvre poor 100 g de produit fini), BEAUFORÎ AOP bit de vache - sel - présure 'fterments lactiques (8 g mis en ?uvre pour g de produit fini), LACTOSE, saccharos dextrose, épices et plante aromatique, arômes naturels, conservateurs : nitrate de potassum - nitrite de sodium, ferments Boyau naturel de porc Origine de la viande : voir emballage près du numéro de {ot Traces possibles de FRUITS A COQUE.
Saucisson au beaufort
Ingrédionts : viande de porc, sell beaùfort (3%), sucres (làctose, sirop de glucose, dextrose (issu de blé)), épices. plante aromatique. Conservateur : *52, ferments lactiques. Bbyau naturel de porc. Traces possibles de fruits à coqueS.. Produit sujet dessiccation.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Saucisson Au Beaufort or Saucisson au beaufort?
Overall, Saucisson au beaufort 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?
Saucisson Au Beaufort has fewer calories: 418 kcal versus 422 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Saucisson au beaufort has less sugar: 0.2 g versus 1 g per 100 g.