Comparison

Tomates séchées 165g vs Délice de tomates séchées bocal 190g

Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientTomates séchées 165gDélice de tomates séchées bo...
Nutri-Score d c
NOVA group 3 3
Calories 159 kcal 201 kcal
Fat 12 g 13 g
Saturated fat 1.3 g 1.8 g
Sugars 6 g 6.3 g
Salt 2.7 g 1.5 g
Fiber 5.9 g 2.8 g
Protein 3.4 g 3.3 g
Additives20
AllergensSulphur dioxide and sulphitesNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Tomates séchées 165g has 21% fewer calories (159 kcal vs 201 kcal).
  • Tomates séchées 165g has 28% less saturated fat (1.3 g vs 1.8 g).
  • Délice de tomates séchées bocal 190g has 44% less salt (1.5 g vs 2.7 g).
  • Tomates séchées 165g has 53% more fiber (5.9 g vs 2.8 g).
  • Délice de tomates séchées bocal 190g has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Tomates séchées 165g lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.

Ingredients

Tomates séchées 165g

Tomates séchées 58,9%, huile de tournesol, sel, vinaigre de vin, ail, origan 0,35%, poivre noir 0,35%, acidifiant: acide lactique, antioxydant : acide ascorbique. Contient des SULFITES

Délice de tomates séchées bocal 190g

Eau, pulpe de tomate (25%), tomates séchées (21,4%), huile de tournesol, huile d'olive vierge extra, sucre, basilic, jus de citron, ail, sel, origan, marjolaine, romarin. Origines: tomates UE et non UE. Huile de tournesol UE et non UE. Huile d'olive vierge extra UE.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Tomates séchées 165g or Délice de tomates séchées bocal 190g?

Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you. 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?

Tomates séchées 165g has fewer calories: 159 kcal versus 201 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Tomates séchées 165g has less sugar: 6 g versus 6.3 g per 100 g.

More comparisons