Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Blue crab, canned
Blue crab, canned2
VS
Clams, cooked Leader
Clams, cooked6

Clams, cooked leads 6–2 · 8 categories decided · 1 tie

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

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

Pick Blue crab, canned for less sodium and more magnesium.

Pick Clams, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium, more calcium, more iron and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    83 kcal
    148 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    17.88 g
    25.55 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    5.13 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    —
  • Total fat
    0.74 g
    1.95 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    0.2 g
    0.19 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN563 mg
    1202 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    259 mg
    628 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    91 mg
    92 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.5 mg
    2.81 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN36 mg
    18 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    3.3 mg
    22.1 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.

Blue crab, canned vs Clams, cooked · Foodatron