Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bluefish, cooked Leader
Bluefish, cooked5
VS
Whiting, cooked
Whiting, cooked2

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

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

The verdict

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

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

Pick Whiting, cooked for less saturated fat and more calcium.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    159 kcal
    116 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN25.69 g
    23.48 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    —
    0 g
  • Total fat
    5.44 g
    1.69 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.17 g
    0.4 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN77 mg
    132 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN477 mg
    434 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    9 mg
    62 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN0.62 mg
    0.42 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN42 mg
    27 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 Whiting, cooked · Foodatron