Salmon (cooked) vs Tuna (cooked)

The short answer

Both are high-protein fish. Salmon carries more fat, and the omega-3s that come with it; tuna is leaner, with more protein per calorie. Salmon when you want the fats and a richer fillet, tuna when you want maximum protein for the calories.

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

Salmon (cooked) · per 100 gTuna (cooked) · per 100 g
Calories182130
Protein25.4 g29.2 g
Fat8.1 g0.6 g
Carbs0 g0 g
Fiber0 g0 g
Sugarsno data0 g
Sodium56 mg54 mg
Vitamins & minerals — where both carry data
Calcium15 mg4 mg
Folate29 µg2 µg
Iron1 mg0.9 mg
Magnesium37 mg42 mg
Niacin10.1 mg22.1 mg
Phosphorus256 mg333 mg
Potassium628 mg527 mg
Riboflavin0.5 mg0.1 mg
Thiamin0.3 mg0.1 mg
Vitamin A13 µg22 µg
Vitamin B123.1 µg2.4 µg
Vitamin B60.9 mg1 mg
Vitamin C0 mg0 mg
Vitamin Dno data2 µg
Vitamin Eno data0.3 mg
Vitamin Kno data0.1 µg
Zinc0.8 mg0.5 mg
At equal calories (per 100 kcal)
ProteinSalmon (cooked): 14 g, Tuna (cooked): 22.4 g · FiberSalmon (cooked): 0 g, Tuna (cooked): 0 g · SodiumSalmon (cooked): 30.8 mg, Tuna (cooked): 41.5 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 Salmon (cooked) or Tuna (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.