Tripes a La Mode De Caen vs Tripes à la Provençale
Overall, Tripes a La Mode De Caen has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 0.
Tripes a La Mode De Caen
Tripes à la Provençale
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Tripes a La Mode De Caen | Tripes à la Provençale |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | a |
| NOVA group | 3 | 4 |
| Calories | 100 kcal | 120 kcal |
| Fat | 2.5 g | 5.1 g |
| Saturated fat | 1.1 g | 1.4 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0.1 g |
| Salt | 1 g | 1 g |
| Protein | 19 g | 15 g |
| Additives | 1 | 2 |
| Allergens | None listed | Sulphur dioxide and sulphites |
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 17% fewer calories (100 kcal vs 120 kcal).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has 51% less fat (2.5 g vs 5.1 g).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen has 21% more protein (19 g vs 15 g).
- Tripes a La Mode De Caen is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Tripes à la Provençale lists: Sulphur dioxide and sulphites.
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
Tripes à la Provençale
Tripes et pieds désossés de bœuf 58,7%, sauce (bouillon, vin blanc (contient des sulfites), huile d'olive (2,3%), stabilisant : E1422, E412, concentré de tomates (1,1%), sel, épices et aromates, arômes naturels.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Tripes a La Mode De Caen or Tripes à la Provençale?
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 120 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Tripes a La Mode De Caen has less sugar: 0 g versus 0.1 g per 100 g.