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

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

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

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

Pick Bluefish, cooked for more protein and more magnesium.

Pick Shad, 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
    252 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN25.69 g
    21.71 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    —
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    17.65 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.17 g
    —
  • Sodiumless is better
    77 mg
    65 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    477 mg
    492 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    60 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    1.24 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    38 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 Shad, cooked · Foodatron