Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked Leader
Bluefish, cooked4
VS
Canned tuna in oil
Canned tuna in oil3

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

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

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

Pick Bluefish, cooked for less saturated fat, less sodium, more potassium and more magnesium.

Pick Canned tuna in oil for more protein, 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
    198 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    25.69 g
    29.13 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0 g
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    8.21 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN1.17 g
    1.53 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN77 mg
    416 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN477 mg
    207 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    13 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    1.39 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    31 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 oil · Foodatron