Tonijnstukken In Water vs Haringfilets in tomatensaus
Overall, Tonijnstukken In Water has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 0.
Tonijnstukken In Water
Haringfilets in tomatensaus
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Tonijnstukken In Water | Haringfilets in tomatensaus |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | c |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 106 kcal | 194 kcal |
| Fat | 0.7 g | 14 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.2 g | 2.8 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 4 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 1 g |
| Fiber | 0 g | — |
| Protein | 25 g | 13 g |
| Additives | 0 | 4 |
| Allergens | Fish | Fish |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Tonijnstukken In Water has 45% fewer calories (106 kcal vs 194 kcal).
- Tonijnstukken In Water has 95% less fat (0.7 g vs 14 g).
- Tonijnstukken In Water has 93% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 2.8 g).
- Tonijnstukken In Water has no sugar, while Haringfilets in tomatensaus has 4 g.
- Tonijnstukken In Water has 48% more protein (25 g vs 13 g).
- Tonijnstukken In Water has the better Nutri-Score.
- Tonijnstukken In Water is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Tonijnstukken In Water
TONIJN (VIS), water, zout.
Haringfilets in tomatensaus
Haringfilets 60% (vis), water, tomatenpuree (12%), raapzaadolie, suiker, rode paprika, zout, gemodificeerd maiszetmeel, zwarte peper extract, verdikkingsmiddelen: guarpitmeel, xanthaangom, Zuurteregelaar: citroenzuur, paprika extract.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Tonijnstukken In Water or Haringfilets in tomatensaus?
Overall, Tonijnstukken In Water 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?
Tonijnstukken In Water has fewer calories: 106 kcal versus 194 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Tonijnstukken In Water has less sugar: 0 g versus 4 g per 100 g.