Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked
Bluefish, cooked3
VS
Canned tuna in water, drained Leader
Canned tuna in water, drained4

Canned tuna in water, drained leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Canned tuna in water, drained comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Bluefish, cooked for more protein, more potassium and more magnesium.

Pick Canned tuna in water, drained for less saturated fat, less sodium, 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
    116 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN25.69 g
    25.51 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0 g
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    0.82 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.17 g
    0.23 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    77 mg
    50 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN477 mg
    237 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    11 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    1.53 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    27 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 Canned tuna in water, drained · Foodatron