Comparison

Tuna Burgers vs Hamburguesas de salmón y merluza

Overall, Tuna Burgers has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 4 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientTuna BurgersHamburguesas de salmón y mer...
Nutri-Score b c
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 199 kcal 165 kcal
Fat 10 g 10.5 g
Saturated fat 1.4 g 1.4 g
Sugars 2.1 g 0.9 g
Salt 1.2 g 1.5 g
Fiber 0.8 g —
Protein 17 g 12.6 g
Additives14
AllergensEggs, Fish, GlutenFish

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

Key differences

  • Hamburguesas de salmón y merluza has 17% fewer calories (165 kcal vs 199 kcal).
  • Hamburguesas de salmón y merluza has 57% less sugar (0.9 g vs 2.1 g).
  • Tuna Burgers has 22% less salt (1.2 g vs 1.5 g).
  • Tuna Burgers has 26% more protein (17 g vs 12.6 g).
  • Tuna Burgers has the better Nutri-Score.
  • Only Tuna Burgers lists: Eggs, Gluten.

Ingredients

Tuna Burgers

_Atum_ (52%), água, óleo vegetal de girassol, pão ralado (contém _glúten_), _farinha de trigo_, cebola, _ovo em pó_, açúcar, alho em pó, sal, salsa, espessante (goma de guar).

Hamburguesas de salmón y merluza

Salmón (Salmo salar) (419%), merluza del por 100 g Cabo (Merluccius capensis, Merluccius paradoxus) (38%), agua, aceite de girasol, harina de arroz, fibras vegetales, fécula de patata, sal, estabilizantes (E-407a, E-451), correctores de acidez (E-331ll, E-325), especias, antioxidante (E-301) y proteína de guisante.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Tuna Burgers or Hamburguesas de salmón y merluza?

Overall, Tuna Burgers 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?

Hamburguesas de salmón y merluza has fewer calories: 165 kcal versus 199 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Hamburguesas de salmón y merluza has less sugar: 0.9 g versus 2.1 g per 100 g.

More comparisons