Comparison

Tuna Salad Mexican Style vs Insalata Di Tonno Messicana

Overall, Tuna Salad Mexican Style has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 5 of our comparison points versus 2.

Nutrition per 100 g

NutrientTuna Salad Mexican StyleInsalata Di Tonno Messicana
Nutri-Score b c
NOVA group 4 4
Calories 123 kcal 197 kcal
Fat 5.5 g 13 g
Saturated fat 0.7 g 1.6 g
Sugars 2.2 g 1.8 g
Salt 0.9 g 1.1 g
Fiber 3.6 g —
Protein 8.4 g 10 g
Additives10
AllergensFishFish

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

Key differences

  • Tuna Salad Mexican Style has 38% fewer calories (123 kcal vs 197 kcal).
  • Tuna Salad Mexican Style has 58% less fat (5.5 g vs 13 g).
  • Tuna Salad Mexican Style has 56% less saturated fat (0.7 g vs 1.6 g).
  • Insalata Di Tonno Messicana has 18% less sugar (1.8 g vs 2.2 g).
  • Insalata Di Tonno Messicana has 16% more protein (10 g vs 8.4 g).
  • Tuna Salad Mexican Style has the better Nutri-Score.

Ingredients

Tuna Salad Mexican Style

Ingredients 26% Red Kidney Beans, 19% Sweetcorn, 18% Tuna (Fish), 10% Red Pepper, Water, Carrot, Onion, Sunflower Oil, Salt, Sugar, Natural Flavouring, Chilli Powder, Thickener: Guar Gum. Allergy Advice For allergens, see ingredients in bold. May also contain Celery

Insalata Di Tonno Messicana

Fagioli rossi 25%, tonno** 23%, mais 22%, olio di semi di mais 12%, carote 6%, peperoni 6%, sale, aroma. Può contenere glutine. **Euthynnus (Katsuwonus) pelamis.

FAQ

Which is healthier: Tuna Salad Mexican Style or Insalata Di Tonno Messicana?

Overall, Tuna Salad Mexican Style 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?

Tuna Salad Mexican Style has fewer calories: 123 kcal versus 197 kcal per 100 g.

Which has less sugar?

Insalata Di Tonno Messicana has less sugar: 1.8 g versus 2.2 g per 100 g.

More comparisons