Comparison

Trutenbrust hauchdünn vs Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954

Overall, Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954 has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientTrutenbrust hauchdünnPechuga de pavo el pozo 1954
Nutri-Score d b
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 63 kcal 89 kcal
Fat 1 g 0.5 g
Saturated fat 0.3 g 0.2 g
Sugars 0.5 g 0.5 g
Salt 2.2 g 1.8 g
Fiber 0.5 g 0 g
Protein 21 g 20.5 g
Additives45
AllergensNone listedNone listed

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

Key differences

  • Trutenbrust hauchdünn has 29% fewer calories (63 kcal vs 89 kcal).
  • Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954 has 50% less fat (0.5 g vs 1 g).
  • Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954 has 20% less salt (1.8 g vs 2.2 g).
  • Trutenbrust hauchdünn has 100% more fiber (0.5 g vs 0 g).
  • Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954 has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Trutenbrust hauchdünn

Trutenfleisch (Brasilien, Frankreich, Ungarn, Polen) 90%, Wasser, Nitrit. pokelsalz (jodiertes Kochsalz, Konservierungsstoff: E 250), Würze (enthalt Hefe extrakt), Glucosesirup, Antioxidationsmittel: E 301 und 591, Saureregulator 500, Stabilisatoren: E 450 und E 451, Verdickungsmittel: Johannisbrotkernmeti und E 4078.

Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954

Pechuga de pavo (92%), agua, sal, aromas, estabilizantes (E-451 y E-407), antioxidantes (E-331 y E-316) y conservador (E-250) Puede contener trazas de proteína de leche y soja.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Trutenbrust hauchdünn or Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954?

Overall, Pechuga de pavo el pozo 1954 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?

Trutenbrust hauchdünn has fewer calories: 63 kcal versus 89 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Trutenbrust hauchdünn has less sugar: 0.5 g versus 0.5 g per 100 g.

More comparisons