Végétal vs Salade de riz complet de Camargue IGP, poulet, haricots verts
Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you.
Végétal
Salade de riz complet de Camargue IGP, poulet, haricots verts
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Végétal | Salade de riz complet de Cam... |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | b | b |
| NOVA group | 3 | — |
| Calories | 180 kcal | 225 kcal |
| Fat | 6.2 g | 6 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.8 g | 0.8 g |
| Sugars | 2.7 g | 2.4 g |
| Salt | 0.8 g | 0.7 g |
| Fiber | 3.5 g | 2.2 g |
| Protein | 6.2 g | 7.5 g |
| Additives | 0 | 0 |
| Allergens | Nuts | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Végétal has 20% fewer calories (180 kcal vs 225 kcal).
- Salade de riz complet de Camargue IGP, poulet, haricots verts has 11% less sugar (2.4 g vs 2.7 g).
- Végétal has 37% more fiber (3.5 g vs 2.2 g).
- Salade de riz complet de Camargue IGP, poulet, haricots verts has 17% more protein (7.5 g vs 6.2 g).
- Only Végétal lists: Nuts.
Ingredients
Végétal
Riz cuit 39% (eau, riz), lentilles cuites 23% (eau, lentilles), haricots azuki cuits 10% (eau, haricots azuki), concombre 7,9%, noix de cajou grillées 5,6%, huile de colza, cranberries séchées sucrées 3,2% (cranberries, sucer, huile de tournesol), ciboule 2,6%, coriandre, épices, jus de citron concentré, vinaigre d'alcool, sel.
Salade de riz complet de Camargue IGP, poulet, haricots verts
Not available.
FAQ
Which is healthier: Végétal or Salade de riz complet de Camargue IGP, poulet, haricots verts?
Neither product is clearly better overall — it depends on what matters most to you. 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?
Végétal has fewer calories: 180 kcal versus 225 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Salade de riz complet de Camargue IGP, poulet, haricots verts has less sugar: 2.4 g versus 2.7 g per 100 g.