Compare foods

Corn bran, crude vs Oat bran, cooked

Original comparison by NutriVerdict

Bottom line: Corn bran, crude is the more nutrient-dense of the two, scoring 91 of 100 to 87 for Oat bran, cooked.

Corn bran, crude edges ahead with a score of 91 of 100 against 87 of 100 for oat bran, cooked, driven mainly by fiber: corn bran packs 79 g of fiber per 100 g compared with 2.6 g in cooked oat bran. Corn bran also has more protein (8.36 g vs 3.21 g) but far more calories per 100 g, 224 versus 40, since the oat bran figure includes cooking water. Sodium is low in both, 7 mg versus 1 mg.

Choose corn bran, crude when fiber intake is the priority and you are using it as a small add-in rather than a full serving. Choose oat bran, cooked when you want a filling, low-calorie breakfast base. Keep portion size in mind, since corn bran's numbers are for the dry, uncooked product.

Head to head, per 100 g

MetricCorn bran, crudeOat bran, cooked
Nutrient Density Score9187
Calories224 kcal40 kcal
Protein8.4 g3.2 g
Carbohydrate86 g11 g
Dietary fiber79 g2.6 g
Sugars0 g-
Total fat0.9 g0.9 g
Saturated fat0.1 g0.2 g
Sodium7 mg1 mg
Potassium44 mg92 mg
Calcium42 mg10 mg
Iron2.8 mg0.9 mg
Magnesium64 mg40 mg
Vitamin C0 mg0 mg
Vitamin A4 ug0 ug
Vitamin E0.4 mg-
Cholesterol0 mg0 mg

Source: USDA FoodData Central · Public domain

Frequently asked questions

Is Corn bran, crude healthier than Oat bran, cooked?

On our Nutrient Density Score, which measures beneficial nutrients per calorie, Corn bran, crude scores higher, 91 of 100 to 87. Both can fit a balanced diet; the score reflects nutrients per calorie, not a whole-diet judgement.

Which has more protein, Corn bran, crude or Oat bran, cooked?

Corn bran, crude has more protein, 8.4 g per 100 g to 3.2 g.

Which has fewer calories?

Oat bran, cooked is lower in calories, 40 kcal per 100 g to 224 kcal.

Which has more fiber?

Corn bran, crude has more dietary fiber, 79 g per 100 g to 2.6 g.

Full Corn bran, crude profile Full Oat bran, cooked profile