Comparison

Tourtes basquaises Coudène vs Tourte au seigle

Overall, Tourte au seigle has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 1.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientTourtes basquaises CoudèneTourte au seigle
Nutri-Score d a
NOVA group 4 3
Calories 296 kcal 246 kcal
Fat 16 g 1.3 g
Saturated fat 1.2 g 0.2 g
Sugars 3.4 g 1.5 g
Salt 1.5 g 1.1 g
Fiber — 12.3 g
Protein 6.9 g 5.8 g
Additives00
AllergensFish, GlutenGluten

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

Key differences

  • Tourte au seigle has 17% fewer calories (246 kcal vs 296 kcal).
  • Tourte au seigle has 92% less fat (1.3 g vs 16 g).
  • Tourte au seigle has 83% less saturated fat (0.2 g vs 1.2 g).
  • Tourte au seigle has 56% less sugar (1.5 g vs 3.4 g).
  • Tourte au seigle has 27% less salt (1.1 g vs 1.5 g).
  • Tourtes basquaises Coudène has 16% more protein (6.9 g vs 5.8 g).
  • Tourte au seigle has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Tourte au seigle is less processed (lower NOVA group).
  • Only Tourtes basquaises Coudène lists: Fish.

Ingredients

Tourtes basquaises Coudène

Farine de BLÉ 34%, piperade 28% (tomates, oignons, poivrons, double concentré de tomates, huile de colza, sel, sucre, jus de citron concentré, ail, arôme), eau, huile de colza, THON 8,5%, amidon de BLÉ, sel, herbes de Provence, basilic, piment, malt de BLÉ.

Tourte au seigle

Farine de seigle (38%), eau, levain à l'ancienne (20%) (farine de blé, sel marin non traité, levure.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Tourtes basquaises Coudène or Tourte au seigle?

Overall, Tourte au seigle 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?

Tourte au seigle has fewer calories: 246 kcal versus 296 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Tourte au seigle has less sugar: 1.5 g versus 3.4 g per 100 g.

More comparisons