Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Plate
Canned tuna in water, drained
Canned tuna in water, drained3
VS
Chicken breast, cooked Leader
Chicken breast, cooked4

Chicken breast, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Chicken breast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Canned tuna in water, drained for less saturated fat, less sodium and more iron.

Pick Chicken breast, cooked for more protein, more potassium, more calcium and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    116 kcal
    165 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    25.51 g
    31.02 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    0.82 g
    3.57 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN0.23 g
    1.01 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN50 mg
    74 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    237 mg
    256 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    11 mg
    15 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN1.53 mg
    1.04 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    27 mg
    29 mgWIN
  • 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.

Canned tuna in water, drained vs Chicken breast, cooked · Foodatron