Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked
Bluefish, cooked1
VS
Chum salmon, cooked Leader
Chum salmon, cooked6

Chum salmon, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Chum salmon, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Bluefish, cooked for more magnesium.

Pick Chum salmon, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, less sodium, 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
    154 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    25.69 g
    25.82 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    —
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    4.83 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.17 g
    1.08 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    77 mg
    64 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    477 mg
    550 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    14 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    0.71 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    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.

Bluefish, cooked vs Chum salmon, cooked · Foodatron