Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Amaranth leaves, cooked Leader
Amaranth leaves, cooked6
VS
Succotash, cooked
Succotash, cooked2

Amaranth leaves, cooked leads 6–2 · 8 categories decided

Amaranth leaves, cooked: 100 g · Succotash, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Amaranth leaves, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Succotash, cooked for more protein and less sodium.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    21 kcal
    111 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    2.11 g
    5.07 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    4.11 g
    24.37 g
  • Fibermore is better
    —
    —
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    —
  • Total fat
    0.18 g
    0.8 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN0.05 g
    0.15 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    257 mg
    253 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN641 mg
    410 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN209 mg
    17 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.26 mg
    1.52 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN55 mg
    53 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    WIN41.1 mg
    8.2 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 Succotash, cooked · Foodatron