Comparison

Smoked Back Bacon vs Filet de bacon

Overall, Filet de bacon has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 3.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientSmoked Back BaconFilet de bacon
Nutri-Score e d
NOVA group 3 4
Calories 215 kcal 123 kcal
Fat 10.2 g 3 g
Saturated fat 4.2 g 1.7 g
Sugars 0.1 g 1.2 g
Salt 3.7 g 2.8 g
Fiber 0 g 0.9 g
Protein 30.8 g 22.3 g
Additives34
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Filet de bacon has 43% fewer calories (123 kcal vs 215 kcal).
  • Filet de bacon has 71% less fat (3 g vs 10.2 g).
  • Filet de bacon has 60% less saturated fat (1.7 g vs 4.2 g).
  • Smoked Back Bacon has 92% less sugar (0.1 g vs 1.2 g).
  • Filet de bacon has 26% less salt (2.8 g vs 3.7 g).
  • Filet de bacon has 100% more fiber (0.9 g vs 0 g).
  • Smoked Back Bacon has 28% more protein (30.8 g vs 22.3 g).
  • Filet de bacon has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Smoked Back Bacon is less processed (lower NOVA group).

Ingredients

Smoked Back Bacon

87% Pork, Water, Salt, Antioxidant: Sodium Ascorbate; Preservatives: Sodium Nitrite, Potassium Nitrate.

Filet de bacon

Filet de porc (Origine : France), sel, acidifiant: lactate de sodium, dextrose, correcteur d'acidité : citrates de sodium, sucre, arômes, arômes de fumée, antioxydant: ascorbate de sodium , conservateur : nitrite de sodium, Traces éventuelles de lait, de moutarde, de fruits à coque et de soja,

FAQ

Which is healthier: Smoked Back Bacon or Filet de bacon?

Overall, Filet de bacon 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?

Filet de bacon has fewer calories: 123 kcal versus 215 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Smoked Back Bacon has less sugar: 0.1 g versus 1.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons