Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefin tuna, cooked
Bluefin tuna, cooked3
VS
Whiting, cooked Leader
Whiting, cooked4

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

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

The verdict

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

Pick Bluefin tuna, cooked for less sodium, more iron and more magnesium.

Pick Whiting, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium and more calcium.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    100 kcal
    100 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    16.26 g
    20.24 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0 g
  • Total fat
    3.41 g
    1.46 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    0.88 g
    0.34 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN27.17 mg
    113.79 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    175.54 mg
    374.14 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    5.43 mg
    53.45 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN0.71 mg
    0.36 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN34.78 mg
    23.28 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0 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.

Bluefin tuna, cooked vs Whiting, cooked · Foodatron