Warcollier vs Battuta di equino
Overall, Battuta di equino has the better nutritional profile on the measures we compare. It wins on 7 of our comparison points versus 1.
Nutrition per 100 g
| Nutrient | Warcollier | Battuta di equino |
|---|---|---|
| Nutri-Score | e | d |
| NOVA group | 4 | 4 |
| Calories | 365 kcal | 129 kcal |
| Fat | 22.5 g | 4.1 g |
| Saturated fat | 9.2 g | 1.5 g |
| Sugars | 0.7 g | 0.3 g |
| Salt | 4.6 g | 2.1 g |
| Protein | 38.8 g | 22.6 g |
| Additives | 1 | 2 |
| Allergens | Gluten | None listed |
Green = better value for that nutrient (less sugar, fat, salt and calories; more fiber and protein).
Key differences
- Battuta di equino has 65% fewer calories (129 kcal vs 365 kcal).
- Battuta di equino has 82% less fat (4.1 g vs 22.5 g).
- Battuta di equino has 83% less saturated fat (1.5 g vs 9.2 g).
- Battuta di equino has 57% less sugar (0.3 g vs 0.7 g).
- Battuta di equino has 55% less salt (2.1 g vs 4.6 g).
- Warcollier has 42% more protein (38.8 g vs 22.6 g).
- Battuta di equino has the better Nutri-Score.
- Only Warcollier lists: Gluten.
Ingredients
Warcollier
lukanka from veal , horse meat ingredients: dry salami, made by 50% veal and 50% horse meat, salt, sugar, natural spices, preservative-rosemary extract and potassium nitrate, antioxidant - ascorbic acid, natural product free of gmo, gluten and meat substitutes, 100g ready product are made by 182g fresh meat, casing-inedible, storage conditions: 0° 8°c
Battuta di equino
carne di equini, sale, destrosio, conservante: E250-E251, Olio extravergine di oliva, pepe nero macinato
FAQ
Which is healthier: Warcollier or Battuta di equino?
Overall, Battuta di equino 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?
Battuta di equino has fewer calories: 129 kcal versus 365 kcal per 100 g.
Which has less sugar?
Battuta di equino has less sugar: 0.3 g versus 0.7 g per 100 g.