Tripes à la mode de caen vs Tripes à la mode de Caen
Overall, Tripes à la mode de Caen has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 2 of our comparison points versus 1.
Tripes à la mode de caen
Tripes à la mode de Caen
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Tripes à la mode de caen | Tripes à la mode de Caen |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 117 kcal | 103 kcal |
| Fat | 3 g | 2.5 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.5 g | 1.3 g |
| Sugars | 0.6 g | 0.5 g |
| Salt | 0.9 g | 0.9 g |
| Fiber | 0.6 g | 0.7 g |
| Protein | 20 g | 20 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Tripes à la mode de Caen has 12% fewer calories (103 kcal vs 117 kcal).
- Tripes à la mode de Caen has 17% less fat (2.5 g vs 3 g).
- Tripes à la mode de caen is less processed (lower NOVA group).
Ingredients
Tripes à la mode de caen
Estomacs et pieds de boeuf 80% (origine : France), eau, carottes 3,5%, oignons, Calvados, jus concentré de citron, sel, poireaux, extraits d'épices et de plantes aromatiques, piment doux, ail.
Tripes à la mode de Caen
Estomacs* et pieds de bœuf * 73,1%, eau*, carottes* 3,5%, vin aromatisé, oignons* 1%, Calvados* 0,8%, jus concentré de citron, sel, poireaux* 0,4%, maltodextrine, piment doux, extraits d'épices et de plantes aromatiques (poivre, laurier, girofle, thym, piment), ail.* Ingrédients d'origine française.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Tripes à la mode de caen or Tripes à la mode de Caen?
Overall, Tripes à la mode de Caen 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?
Tripes à la mode de Caen has fewer calories: 103 kcal versus 117 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Tripes à la mode de Caen has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.6 g per 100 g.