Head-to-Head Analysis

Ensaladilla de Marisco vs Chicken stock for cooking, original

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

Package of Ensaladilla de Marisco

Ensaladilla de Marisco

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Chicken stock for cooking, original

Chicken stock for cooking, original

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
255 kcal
Energy
12 kcal
2.7g
Sugars
0.4g
22g
Fat
0.2g
7.4g
Protein
2.1g
1.8g
Salt
0.4g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Ensaladilla de Marisco and Chicken stock for cooking, original 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.

Ensaladilla de Marisco is the more energy-dense option here, packing 243 more calories per 100g than Chicken stock for cooking, original. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

However, watch out for the sugar content. Ensaladilla de Marisco contains significantly more sugar (2.7g) compared to the milder Chicken stock for cooking, original (0.42g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Chicken stock for cooking, original is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Ensaladilla de Marisco offers a protein boost with 7.4g per 100g, outperforming Chicken stock for cooking, original in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Ensaladilla de Marisco or Chicken stock for cooking, original?

It depends on your goals. Ensaladilla de Marisco has 255 calories, while Chicken stock for cooking, original has 12 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Ensaladilla de Marisco vegan?

No, Ensaladilla de Marisco is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Ensaladilla de Marisco and Chicken stock for cooking, original?

There is a difference of 243 calories per 100g between the two products.

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