Head-to-Head Analysis

CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE vs Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat

Wondering which one to pick? We analyzed the nutritional profile, ingredients, and vegan status to help you decide.

Package of CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE

CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat

Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
163 kcal
Energy
291 kcal
3.1g
Sugars
0g
7.1g
Fat
24.7g
6.2g
Protein
15.9g
1.1g
Salt
0.2g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE and Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat side-by-side, the nutritional differences become quite clear. Both products cater to specific dietary needs, but picking the right one depends on whether you are prioritizing weight loss, muscle gain, or clean eating.

For calorie-conscious consumers, CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE is the clear winner. With 128 fewer calories per 100g than its competitor, it allows for more volume while keeping your energy intake in check.

However, watch out for the sugar content. CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE contains significantly more sugar (3.08g) compared to the milder Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat is undeniably the healthier pick.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE or Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat?

It depends on your goals. CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE has 163 calories, while Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat has 291 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE vegan?

No, CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between CHICKEN TIKKA MASALA WITH BASMATI SAFFRON RICE and Ground Beef 75% Lean 25% Fat?

There is a difference of 128 calories per 100g between the two products.

Data source: Open Food Facts. Comparisons are generated automatically based on nutritional values per 100g.