Tripes à la Tomate vs Haggis
Overall, Tripes à la Tomate has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 8 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Tripes à la Tomate | Haggis |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | a | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 3 |
| Calories | 73 kcal | 253 kcal |
| Fat | 1.9 g | 16.1 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.8 g | 7.3 g |
| Sugars | 0.5 g | 0.3 g |
| Salt | 1 g | 1.5 g |
| Fiber | 0.5 g | 0 g |
| Protein | 14 g | 10.8 g |
| Additives | 2 | 0 |
| Allergens | None listed | Gluten |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Tripes à la Tomate has 71% fewer calories (73 kcal vs 253 kcal).
- Tripes à la Tomate has 88% less fat (1.9 g vs 16.1 g).
- Tripes à la Tomate has 89% less saturated fat (0.8 g vs 7.3 g).
- Tripes à la Tomate has 33% less salt (1 g vs 1.5 g).
- Tripes à la Tomate has 100% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0 g).
- Tripes à la Tomate has 23% more protein (14 g vs 10.8 g).
- Tripes à la Tomate has the better Nutri-Score.
- Haggis is less processed (lower NOVA group).
- Only Haggis lists: Gluten.
Ingredients
Tripes à la Tomate
Tripes de boeuf 52 % (panses, bonnets, feuillets, caillettes), eau, pieds de bœuf désossés 6 %, oignons, carottes, concentré de tomate 2,5 %, calvados, gélatine de porc, sel, ail, épices et aromate, acidifiant : acide citrique, arôme naturel.
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 à la Tomate or Haggis?
Overall, Tripes à la Tomate 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 Tomate has fewer calories: 73 kcal versus 253 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Haggis has less sugar: 0.3 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.