Comparison

Saucisson sec à la Tomme de Montagne vs Saucisson sec comté

Overall, Saucisson sec comté has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 0.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientSaucisson sec à la Tomme de...Saucisson sec comté
Nutri-Score e e
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 395 kcal 304 kcal
Fat 32 g 22.1 g
Saturated fat 15 g 7.2 g
Sugars 1.7 g 0.1 g
Salt 4.9 g 4.8 g
Fiber 0 g 0 g
Protein 25 g 26.4 g
Additives20
AllergensMilkMilk

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

Key differences

  • Saucisson sec comté has 23% fewer calories (304 kcal vs 395 kcal).
  • Saucisson sec comté has 31% less fat (22.1 g vs 32 g).
  • Saucisson sec comté has 52% less saturated fat (7.2 g vs 15 g).
  • Saucisson sec comté has 94% less sugar (0.1 g vs 1.7 g).
  • Saucisson sec comté is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

Saucisson sec à la Tomme de Montagne

Viande de porc (origine: France), tomme de montagne 8,5% (lait de vache, sel, présure animale, ferments lactiques), sel, lactose, dextrose, épices, ail, antioxydant: érythorbate de sodium, conservateur: nitrate de potassium, ferments.

Saucisson sec comté

Viande de porc* 90% (France), Comté AOP* (lait) 7%, sel, sucre de canne*, épices*, plantes aromatiques*, betterave rouge*, ferments, boyau naturel de porc. 146g de viande de porc utilisée pour 100g de produit fini. *Issu de l'agriculture biologique Issu du commerce équitable Traces éventuelles de céleri

FAQ

Which is healthier: Saucisson sec à la Tomme de Montagne or Saucisson sec comté?

Overall, Saucisson sec comté 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 sec comté has fewer calories: 304 kcal versus 395 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Saucisson sec comté has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 1.7 g per 100 g.

More comparisons