Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefin tuna, cooked
Bluefin tuna, cooked1
VS
Whelk, cooked Leader
Whelk, cooked7

Whelk, cooked leads 7–1 · 8 categories decided · 1 tie

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Whelk, cooked comes out ahead, winning 7 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Bluefin tuna, cooked for less sodium.

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

Evenly matched on fiber.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    184 kcal
    275 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    29.91 g
    47.68 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    15.52 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    —
  • Total fat
    6.28 g
    0.8 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.61 g
    0.06 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN50 mg
    412 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    323 mg
    694 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    10 mg
    113 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    1.31 mg
    10.06 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    64 mg
    172 mgWIN
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    6.8 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.

Bluefin tuna, cooked vs Whelk, cooked · Foodatron