Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked
Bluefish, cooked3
VS
Clams, canned Leader
Clams, canned4

Clams, canned leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Clams, canned comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Bluefish, cooked for more protein, less sodium and more magnesium.

Pick Clams, canned for less saturated fat, more potassium, more calcium and more iron.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    159 kcal
    142 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN25.69 g
    24.25 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    5.9 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0 g
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    1.59 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.17 g
    0.31 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN77 mg
    112 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    477 mg
    628 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    65 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    2.68 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    32 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.

Bluefish, cooked vs Clams, canned · Foodatron