Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked Leader
Bluefish, cooked5
VS
Canned tuna in oil, drained
Canned tuna in oil, drained2

Bluefish, cooked leads 5–2 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

The verdict

Bluefish, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Canned tuna in oil, drained for more calcium and more iron.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    100 kcal
    100 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN16.16 g
    14.71 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0 g
  • Total fat
    3.42 g
    4.15 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN0.74 g
    0.77 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48.43 mg
    210.1 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN300 mg
    104.55 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    5.66 mg
    6.57 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.39 mg
    0.7 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN26.42 mg
    15.66 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, drained · Foodatron