Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Chicken back, cooked
Chicken back, cooked3
VS
Chicken breast, raw Leader
Chicken breast, raw4

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

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

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

Pick Chicken back, cooked for more protein, more calcium and more iron.

Pick Chicken breast, raw for less saturated fat, less sodium, more potassium and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    239 kcal
    120 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN28.19 g
    22.5 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    13.16 g
    2.62 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    3.6 g
    0.56 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    96 mg
    45 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    237 mg
    334 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN24 mg
    5 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN1.39 mg
    0.37 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    22 mg
    28 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.

Chicken back, cooked vs Chicken breast, raw · Foodatron