Head-to-Head Analysis

Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash vs Organic chicken casserole

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

Top Pick
Package of Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash

Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Organic chicken casserole

Organic chicken casserole

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
148 kcal
Energy
71 kcal
0.4g
Sugars
6g
8.9g
Fat
1.2g
6.8g
Protein
3.9g
1.1g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash and Organic chicken casserole 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.

Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash is the more energy-dense option here, packing 77 more calories per 100g than Organic chicken casserole. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

In terms of sugar control, Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash takes the lead with only 0.424g of sugar per 100g, whereas Organic chicken casserole contains 6g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash offers a protein boost with 6.78g per 100g, outperforming Organic chicken casserole in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash or Organic chicken casserole?

It depends on your goals. Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash has 148 calories, while Organic chicken casserole has 71 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash vegan?

No, Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Mary kitchen homestyle roast beef hash and Organic chicken casserole?

There is a difference of 77 calories per 100g between the two products.

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