Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked Leader
Bluefish, cooked5
VS
Herring, cooked
Herring, cooked3

Bluefish, cooked leads 5–3 · 8 categories decided · 1 tie

Bluefish, cooked: 100 g · Herring, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Bluefish, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Herring, cooked for more calcium, more iron and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    159 kcal
    203 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN25.69 g
    23.03 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0 g
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    11.59 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN1.17 g
    2.62 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN77 mg
    115 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN477 mg
    419 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    74 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    1.41 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    41 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0.7 mgWIN
  • 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 Herring, cooked · Foodatron