Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Amaranth leaves, cooked Leader
Amaranth leaves, cooked5
VS
Collard greens, raw
Collard greens, raw3

Amaranth leaves, cooked leads 5–3 · 8 categories decided

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Amaranth leaves, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Amaranth leaves, cooked for less saturated fat, more potassium, more iron, more magnesium and more vitamin C.

Pick Collard greens, raw for more protein, less sodium and more calcium.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    21 kcal
    32 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    2.11 g
    3.02 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    4.11 g
    5.42 g
  • Fibermore is better
    —
    4 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0.46 g
  • Total fat
    0.18 g
    0.61 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN0.05 g
    0.06 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    257 mg
    17 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN641 mg
    213 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    209 mg
    232 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.26 mg
    0.47 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN55 mg
    27 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    WIN41.1 mg
    35.3 mg
  • 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.

Amaranth leaves, cooked vs Collard greens, raw · Foodatron