Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked
Bluefish, cooked1
VS
Whelk, cooked Leader
Whelk, cooked7

Whelk, cooked leads 7–1 · 8 categories decided · 1 tie

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

The verdict

Whelk, cooked comes out ahead, winning 7 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Bluefish, cooked for less sodium.

Pick Whelk, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium, more calcium, more iron, more magnesium and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    159 kcal
    275 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    25.69 g
    47.68 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    15.52 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    —
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    0.8 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.17 g
    0.06 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN77 mg
    412 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    477 mg
    694 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    113 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.62 mg
    10.06 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    42 mg
    172 mgWIN
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    6.8 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 Whelk, cooked · Foodatron