Shrimp (cooked) vs Salmon (cooked)
Both cooked seafood. Shrimp is very lean and low in calories; salmon is far fattier, bringing omega-3 and vitamin D. Shrimp for a light, low-fat protein, salmon for the healthy fats and a richer fillet.
Shrimp (cooked) and Salmon (cooked), per 100 g and per portion. A gap means USDA has no value for it — not zero.
| Shrimp (cooked) · per 100 g | Salmon (cooked) · per 100 g | |
|---|---|---|
| Calories | 99 | 182 |
| Protein | 24 g | 25.4 g |
| Fat | 0.3 g | 8.1 g |
| Carbs | 0.2 g | 0 g |
| Fiber | no data | 0 g |
| Sugars | no data | no data |
| Sodium | 111 mg | 56 mg |
| Vitamins & minerals — where both carry data | ||
| Calcium | 70 mg | 15 mg |
| Folate | no data | 29 µg |
| Iron | 0.5 mg | 1 mg |
| Magnesium | 39 mg | 37 mg |
| Niacin | no data | 10.1 mg |
| Phosphorus | 237 mg | 256 mg |
| Potassium | 259 mg | 628 mg |
| Riboflavin | no data | 0.5 mg |
| Thiamin | no data | 0.3 mg |
| Vitamin A | no data | 13 µg |
| Vitamin B12 | no data | 3.1 µg |
| Vitamin B6 | no data | 0.9 mg |
| Vitamin C | no data | 0 mg |
| Zinc | 1.6 mg | 0.8 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.
Is Shrimp (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.