Mackerel (cooked) vs Salmon (cooked)

The short answer

Two oily fish rich in omega-3. Mackerel is even fattier and higher in calories than salmon, with more B12; salmon is a touch leaner and higher in protein per calorie. Both are top omega-3 sources — pick by taste and how rich you want it.

Mackerel (cooked) and Salmon (cooked), per 100 g and per portion. A gap means USDA has no value for it — not zero.

	Mackerel (cooked) · per 100 g	Salmon (cooked) · per 100 g
Calories	262	182
Protein	23.9 g	25.4 g
Fat	17.8 g	8.1 g
Carbs	0 g	0 g
Fiber	0 g	0 g
Sugars	no data	no data
Sodium	83 mg	56 mg
Vitamins & minerals — where both carry data
Calcium	15 mg	15 mg
Folate	2 µg	29 µg
Iron	1.6 mg	1 mg
Magnesium	97 mg	37 mg
Niacin	6.9 mg	10.1 mg
Phosphorus	278 mg	256 mg
Potassium	401 mg	628 mg
Riboflavin	0.4 mg	0.5 mg
Thiamin	0.2 mg	0.3 mg
Vitamin A	54 µg	13 µg
Vitamin B12	19 µg	3.1 µg
Vitamin B6	0.5 mg	0.9 mg
Vitamin C	0.4 mg	0 mg
Zinc	0.9 mg	0.8 mg

At equal calories (per 100 kcal)

Protein — Mackerel (cooked): 9.1 g, Salmon (cooked): 14 g · Fiber — Mackerel (cooked): 0 g, Salmon (cooked): 0 g · Sodium — Mackerel (cooked): 31.7 mg, Salmon (cooked): 30.8 mg

Generic USDA foods (not brands), so both carry micronutrients. Numbers are per 100 g unless the portion toggle is on. USDA FoodData Central, as of 2026-08-12.

Common questions

Is Mackerel (cooked) or Salmon (cooked) better?

Neither is “better” on its own — it depends what you want from it. The table shows where each is higher; the short answer says when each one fits. Compare on the same basis (per 100 g) and pick for your dish and your goal.

How were these numbers worked out?

Straight from USDA FoodData Central for the generic form of each food, per 100 g. We show the portion view too, but portion sizes differ between foods, so per 100 g is the fair comparison.

Why does one column say “no data”?

Because USDA has no value for that nutrient in that food — so we leave it blank rather than print a 0 that would read as “none”. A real zero from USDA still shows as 0.