Fish Protein Per 100g: Cod, Salmon and Tuna Compared

Fish protein per 100g depends on the species and the form being measured. In USDA FoodData Central entries for raw, edible fish, Atlantic cod has 17.8g, Atlantic salmon 20.4g and yellowfin tuna 24.4g of protein per 100g. These figures compare those particular raw entries—not every fish fillet or packaged product. They give Australian shoppers and people tracking macros a useful starting point for portion planning, provided the fish and form being logged are a reasonable match.

How much protein is in 100g of fish?

The table compares the same measurement basis: raw edible fish. The USDA records report 17.8g for Atlantic cod, 20.4g for Atlantic salmon and 24.4g for yellowfin tuna per 100g. You can check the entries for raw Atlantic cod, raw Atlantic salmon and raw yellowfin tuna.

The values describe named fish entries, not a universal “fish” average. The ranking answers which of these three raw records has the most protein per 100g. It does not tell you which fish is the best choice for your meal or budget: serving size, product price, preference and what you do with the rest of a pack can all matter.

Nor does “highest per 100g” mean “most protein in the serving you eat.” A larger cod portion can provide more total protein than a smaller tuna portion. The per-100g figure is a comparison unit; to plan a meal, scale it to the amount you intend to eat.

Keep the scope attached to the number. These figures are for raw fish in the named database records. They are not values for cooked fish, canned tuna, smoked fish or a crumbed fillet. If you compare different forms as though they were interchangeable, you may mistake a difference in measurement basis for a difference between species.

Why do fish protein figures vary?

Species and product descriptions matter

Broad labels such as “fish” or “tuna” can cover different foods. The reference figures above identify Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon and yellowfin tuna specifically; a different species or product should not automatically inherit the same number. Where a label names a species, that description can help you choose a closer database entry. Where it does not, treat a generic entry as an estimate rather than a precise reading of that item.

Food-composition databases are useful for comparing described foods, but a database record is not a laboratory analysis of the fillet in your shopping basket. The Australian Food Composition Database is another reference for looking up foods in an Australian context; check how its food description compares with the product you have. Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s Australian Food Composition Database provides a separate reference point for that check.

Processing changes what the entry describes

A plain fillet, canned fish and a prepared fish product are different entries to look for because they may differ in form and ingredients. Canned fish can be packed in water, oil or another liquid, while a crumbed or sauced product includes more than plain fish. A plain-fillet value does not describe the full prepared food if you eat its coating or sauce as well.

• Fresh, unseasoned fillet: look for the named species and the relevant raw or cooked description.
• Canned fish: check the product’s species and whether the nutrition information applies to drained fish or the product as sold.
• Crumbed or sauced fish: use information for the prepared product rather than treating it as a plain fillet.
• Unclear species or form: use the closest described reference available and keep the result approximate.

For a branded or prepared item, the packet’s nutrition information may be more specific to that product than a general entry. That does not make database values unhelpful: they are a practical comparison when the foods and descriptions match. It means the source should fit the question—use a named database entry for a comparable plain fish, and product information when you need to assess a particular packaged food.

How should you compare raw and cooked fish?

Cooking changes the weight used for the calculation

Cooking can reduce a fish portion’s water weight. When the portion weighs less after cooking, protein can be more concentrated per 100g of cooked food even though cooking has not added protein. That is why a raw value and a cooked value may differ: the amount of food used as the denominator has changed. The size of the change depends on the fish and preparation, so there is no single conversion percentage that fits every fillet.

A practical approach is to keep the database description and the measured food in the same state. If you weigh raw fish, choose a raw entry. If you weigh it cooked, look for a cooked entry that reasonably matches the fish and preparation. Do not apply the raw per-100g figure directly to cooked weight as if the food had not changed.

Choose a route that fits how you cook

For meal prep, the easiest method to repeat may be to weigh portions before cooking and record those raw weights. You can then divide the cooked batch between meals without assuming each cooked piece retained its raw weight. If you need to log a cooked serving directly, use a suitable cooked record where available rather than estimating an unmeasured loss of moisture.

• Cooking from individual portions: record the fish weight before cooking and use a matching raw entry.
• Serving from a cooked batch: use a cooked entry when you can find a suitable match; otherwise, use recorded raw batch weights to estimate each meal’s share.
• Eating canned fish: follow the product’s stated basis, particularly if the portion is drained fish rather than the full contents as sold.

This choice matters when reviewing meals over time. A meal log that mixes raw weights with cooked entries may make portions look inconsistent even when you followed the same cooking routine. Keeping a clear record of the basis makes comparisons more interpretable, especially for people tracking protein across a weekly meal plan or reviewing a client’s food notes.

How do you calculate protein in your portion?

Scale the per-100g number to the amount of fish you plan to eat: portion weight in grams ÷ 100 × protein per 100g. The portion and reference value need to describe the same food basis. Use edible fish weight rather than including packaging or parts you will not eat; otherwise, the arithmetic describes a different amount from the meal.

The same calculation can answer two different planning questions. You can estimate how much protein a portion contributes, or work backwards from a meal plan to estimate the amount of raw fish that would provide a chosen amount. These are arithmetic estimates based on the database values, not guarantees about every fish sold under the same name.

• Cod for an illustrative 30g target: 30 ÷ 17.8 × 100 gives about 169g raw Atlantic cod.
• Salmon for the same illustrative target: 30 ÷ 20.4 × 100 gives about 147g raw Atlantic salmon.
• Yellowfin tuna for the same illustrative target: 30 ÷ 24.4 × 100 gives about 123g raw yellowfin tuna.

The 30g figure here is a worked example, not a recommendation for everyone’s meal. It shows how the raw entries translate into portion sizes: at those reference values, the higher-protein-per-100g fish takes a smaller raw portion to reach the same estimated protein amount. A real meal may call for a different amount depending on your plan and the rest of the food you will eat.

You can also estimate the protein contribution of a particular portion by multiplying its weight by the matching entry. For instance, a 120g raw Atlantic salmon portion works out to about 24.5g protein using 20.4g per 100g (120 ÷ 100 × 20.4). The result is useful for meal planning, but its precision should not be mistaken for a measurement of that individual fillet.

How can you compare fish protein with grocery cost?

Protein per 100g tells you about concentration, not affordability. To compare products for a grocery budget, estimate the protein in the amount you can use, then compare that amount with the pack price. This helps prevent a high protein figure from obscuring the cost of buying a whole pack or the fact that some of its weight may not end up in the meal.

Cost per gram of protein is one comparison tool: divide the pack price by the estimated grams of protein in the usable fish. For example, suppose an illustrative pack costs $8 and contains 400g of edible fish with a product-matched estimate of 20g protein per 100g. The pack would provide an estimated 80g of protein, so $8 ÷ 80g equals $0.10 per gram. These are hypothetical figures to demonstrate the calculation, not a current supermarket price or a claim about a particular product.

Before using that comparison, consider how much of the pack you will actually use. If the stated weight includes liquid that you discard, use the appropriate drained amount for the calculation. If the pack contains more than one meal, plan how you will use the remainder; the total pack price still matters to your weekly spending, even if you eat only one serving at a time.

1. Use a product description and protein figure that match the fish you are comparing.
2. Estimate protein for the usable amount, not just a single 100g reference.
3. Divide the pack price by estimated pack protein to compare cost per gram.
4. Consider pack size and planned leftovers alongside the ratio; a low cost per gram is not useful if the product does not fit your meals.

Use the ratio to inform a choice, not make it for you. A cheaper source of protein may suit a budget but be a poor fit for the meals you plan, while a higher-priced option may make sense if you will use the whole pack. For Australian Coles shoppers, Macronomics is designed to bring macro targets together with planned meals and estimated grocery costs, including whole-pack costs. If you want to compare fish portions with the wider cost of a meal plan, Macronomics can be a useful place to explore that approach.

Authored with NotFair SEO