Head-to-Head Analysis

Stuffed Salmon Fillets vs Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes

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

Top Pick
Package of Stuffed Salmon Fillets

Stuffed Salmon Fillets

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes

Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
192 kcal
Energy
533 kcal
2g
Sugars
46.7g
12.5g
Fat
36.7g
15.3g
Protein
6.7g
0.8g
Salt
0.2g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Stuffed Salmon Fillets and Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes 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, Stuffed Salmon Fillets is the clear winner. With 341 fewer calories per 100g than its competitor, it allows for more volume while keeping your energy intake in check.

In terms of sugar control, Stuffed Salmon Fillets takes the lead with only 1.96g of sugar per 100g, whereas Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes contains 46.7g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? Stuffed Salmon Fillets offers a protein boost with 15.3g per 100g, outperforming Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Stuffed Salmon Fillets or Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes?

Stuffed Salmon Fillets appears to be the healthier option generally, as it has less sugar and fewer calories.

Is Stuffed Salmon Fillets vegan?

No, Stuffed Salmon Fillets is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Stuffed Salmon Fillets and Island macs tiare milk chocolate covered macadamia nuts boxes?

There is a difference of 341 calories per 100g between the two products.

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