Abalone, cooked vs Trout, cooked

Abalone, cooked3

Leader

Trout, cooked4

Trout, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Abalone, cooked: 100 g · Trout, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Trout, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Abalone, cooked for more calcium, more iron and more magnesium.

Pick Trout, cooked for more protein, less sodium, more potassium and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber and saturated fat.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common serving Equal calories

Head-to-head

Energy
189 kcal
168 kcal
Proteinmore is better
19.63 g
23.8 gWIN
Carbohydrate
11.05 g
0 g
Fibermore is better
0 g
0 g
Total sugarsless is better
—
0 g
Total fat
6.78 g
7.38 g
Saturated fatless is better
1.65 g
1.65 g
Sodiumless is better
591 mg
61 mgWIN
Potassiummore is better
284 mg
450 mgWIN
Calciummore is better
WIN37 mg
30 mg
Ironmore is better
WIN3.8 mg
0.36 mg
Magnesiummore is better
WIN56 mg
30 mg
Vitamin Cmore is better
1.8 mg
2.9 mgWIN
Vitamin Dmore is better
—
—

Winners are decided by deterministic per-metric rules on the stated basis; ties and missing data don’t score (missing ≠ zero). Educational information only — not medical advice.