Tripes a La Mode De Caen vs Haggis
Overall, Tripes a La Mode De Caen has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 0.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Tripes a La Mode De Caen | Haggis |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | d |
| NOVA group | 3 | 3 |
| Calories | 100 kcal | 253 kcal |
| Fat | 2.5 g | 16.1 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.1 g | 7.3 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.3 g |
| Salt | 1 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | — | 0 g |
| Protein | 19 g | 10.8 g |
| Additives | 1 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has 60% fewer calories (100 kcal vs 253 kcal).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has 84% less fat (2.5 g vs 16.1 g).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has 85% less saturated fat (1.1 g vs 7.3 g).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has no sugar, while Haggis has 0.3 g.
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has 34% less salt (1 g vs 1.5 g).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has 43% more protein (19 g vs 10.8 g).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Haggis lists: Gluten.
Ingredients
Tripes a La Mode De Caen
Estomacs et pieds de bœuf (73 %), fond , de sauce : eau, carottes, oignons, vin aroma.>o calvados, extrait naturel d'épices et d'arom - acidifiant : acide citrique, pulpe dic
Haggis
Pork lungs (26%), oatmeal, water, beef heart (13%), beef liver (10%), lamb lungs (7%), beef heart (5%), dried onion, pearl barley, salt, spices (black pepper, pimento)
FAQ
Which is healthier: Tripes a La Mode De Caen or Haggis?
Overall, Tripes a 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 a La Mode De Caen has fewer calories: 100 kcal versus 253 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Tripes a La Mode De Caen has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.3 g per 100 g.