Monoprix Wrap Poulet Sauce Caesar · Nutrisiq

Back to discovery

Monoprix Wrap Poulet Sauce Caesar packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Monoprix Wrap Poulet Sauce Caesar

Name: Monoprix Wrap Poulet Sauce Caesar
Brand: Monoprix
SKU: 3350033129849

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Moderate signal

The nutrient profile is mixed or moderate based on the available evidence.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Monoprix Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), guarkummi (E412) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (80 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategorySandwiches

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity205 g

PackagingEmballage plastique, Étui cartonné

Ownership

Processing

Performance

Nutrition score53/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Galette de blé à la tomate 41% [farine de blé 25% huile de colza, assaisonnement à base de tomate 0.83% (poudre de tomates 0,41 %, poivrons, paprika, basilic), sucre. poudres à lever E450 et E500, émulsifiant : E471, sel acidifiant : E296]-filet de poulet traité en salaison roti 18% (filet de poulet 1 7% (origine : UE), dextrose, sel, antioxydant 331 - tomate - mayonnaise allégée en matière grasse Leau, huile de colza, jaune d'oeuf, amidon transforme moutarde (eau, graines de moutarde, vinaigre dalou sel), in aigre d'alcool, sucre, sel, épaississant : E412, a0 neggiano railloutarde, épice] .- fromage Parmigiano (anchois salés 0,46%, huile de tournesol)-ju servateur , Fabriqué dans un atelier qui utilise lis râpé 5,9%-roquette filet. d, 0 - roquette 4,5%-fromage blanc tournesol D JUs de citro conservateur l'huile de enn transformé - ail déshydraté - poivre - E224. soja, crustacés, graines de sésame, mollusque, arachides, lupin, fruits à coque, sulfites. Les informations intolérantes ou allergiques sont en gras

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 53/100

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 90/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.

The data is broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), guarkummi (E412) support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, and nutrition panel. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Sandwich arôme jambon fumé et fromage

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

42/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

42/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

54/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Sandwich poulet salade halal

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

67/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

arabi Chicken Burgers

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

53/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Croque Monsieur

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

38/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

38/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

54/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Need attention

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Formulation markers such as mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), guarkummi (E412) support a more processed classification.
A long ingredient list (80 ingredients) supports a more processed classification.

Supporting factors

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing a nutrition panel.

What would improve the assessment

Part of this signal relies on inferred values, so direct declared data would improve reliability.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategorySandwiches

Label information quality88/100

Data confidence

Quantity205 g

PackagingEmballage plastique, Étui cartonné

Ownership

Processing

Performance

Nutrition score53/100 · Grade D

Ingredient-level explanation

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

/100

Nutrition profile

Nutrition score 53/100

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while processing needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Processing

Data confidence

high

Data confidence

Data confidence 90/100

High reliability

The data is strong and the assessment carries high confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The result is uneven: strengths and weaknesses are balanced.

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition score is available, but some inputs were inferred.

Processing

Very highly processed

Processing indicator kept separate from the nutrition score.

Environmental signal

Mixed

51/100

Estimated environmental signal with limited precision.

Label quality

Strong

88/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is broad and consistent. The interpretation is likely to remain stable.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

Mandatory field coverage is strong (88%).
Impact: medium

Pulls the score down

Declared NOVA group 4 anchors the processing indicator.
Impact: high
Isolated or heavily fractionated ingredients (1 markers) support a more processed classification.
Impact: medium
Formulation markers such as mono- ja diglütseriidid (E471), guarkummi (E412) support a more processed classification.
Impact: low

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Confidence is reduced by missing nutrition evidence.
Impact: high
The record is missing a nutrition panel.
Impact: high

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Sandwich arôme jambon fumé et fromage

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

42/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

72/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

42/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

54/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

67/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

medium confidence from label, nutrition, and source coverage

View product

Open Food Facts Sandwich poulet salade halal

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

67/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Quite good

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while environmental signal needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Environmental signal

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Quite good

67/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

arabi Chicken Burgers

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

53/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Mixed

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Mixed

53/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

57/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Open Food Facts Croque Monsieur

Sandwiches. Evidence quality: medium

38/100

nutrition score

Sandwiches

Score summary

Nutrition score

Weak

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while nutrition profile needs the most caution.

Strongest: Label qualityWeakest: Nutrition profile

Data confidence

75/100

medium reliability

Nutrition profile

Weak

38/100

Nutrition profile

Affected by energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, fiber, limited protein support, and cautious fruit/vegetable/legume/nut credit.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing

Affected by ingredient complexity and degree of processing.

Environmental signal

Mixed

54/100

Environmental signal

Affected by packaging, origin, and estimate coverage.

Label quality

Quite good

74/100

Label quality

Affected by field completeness and record consistency, not by nutrition quality.

Monoprix Wrap Poulet Sauce Caesar

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 53/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Sandwich arôme jambon fumé et fromage

Open Food Facts Sandwich poulet salade halal

arabi Chicken Burgers

Open Food Facts Croque Monsieur

Monoprix Wrap Poulet Sauce Caesar

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

Label quality

Supporting factors

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

Nutrition score 53/100

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Similar options worth comparing

Open Food Facts Sandwich arôme jambon fumé et fromage

Open Food Facts Sandwich poulet salade halal

arabi Chicken Burgers

Open Food Facts Croque Monsieur

What lowers the rating

Ultra-töödeldud toit (NOVA 4)

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid

Ultra-töödeldud profiil (NOVA 4) lapse menüüs