Head-to-Head Analysis

Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon vs Ultra Thin Smoked Ham

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

Top Pick
Package of Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon

Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Ultra Thin Smoked Ham

Ultra Thin Smoked Ham

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
200 kcal
Energy
107.1 kcal
0g
Sugars
1.8g
13.3g
Fat
1.8g
20g
Protein
16.1g
2.2g
Salt
3g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon and Ultra Thin Smoked Ham 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.

Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon is the more energy-dense option here, packing 93 more calories per 100g than Ultra Thin Smoked Ham. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

In terms of sugar control, Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon takes the lead with only 0g of sugar per 100g, whereas Ultra Thin Smoked Ham contains 1.79g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon offers a protein boost with 20g per 100g, outperforming Ultra Thin Smoked Ham in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon or Ultra Thin Smoked Ham?

It depends on your goals. Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon has 200 calories, while Ultra Thin Smoked Ham has 107.14 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon vegan?

No, Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Sugar free fruitwood smoked uncured bacon and Ultra Thin Smoked Ham?

There is a difference of 93 calories per 100g between the two products.

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