Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked
Bluefish, cooked2
VS
Cusk, cooked Leader
Cusk, cooked4

Cusk, cooked leads 4–2 · 6 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Cusk, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 6 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Bluefish, cooked for more protein and more magnesium.

Pick Cusk, cooked for 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
    112 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN25.69 g
    24.35 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    —
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    0.88 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.17 g
    —
  • Sodiumless is better
    77 mg
    40 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    477 mg
    503 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    13 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    1.06 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    40 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 Cusk, cooked · Foodatron