Emu, fan fillet, raw vs Emu, full rump, raw
Original comparison by NutriVerdict
Bottom line: Emu, fan fillet, raw is the more nutrient-dense of the two, scoring 87 of 100 to 86 for Emu, full rump, raw.
Emu fan fillet edges out emu full rump on nutrient density, 87 of 100 versus 86 of 100, a gap driven mostly by leaner numbers per 100 g. Fan fillet has fewer calories (103 vs 112) and less fat (0.8 g vs 1.64 g), while protein is nearly identical (22.5 g vs 22.8 g). Full rump does carry noticeably less sodium, 90 mg against fan fillet's 120 mg.
Choose fan fillet when the lowest calorie and fat option matters most while keeping protein high. Choose full rump when sodium control is the bigger priority, since it comes in 30 mg lower per 100 g. The scores sit close enough, 87 versus 86, that either cut works well in a lean, high-protein rotation.
Head to head, per 100 g
| Metric | Emu, fan fillet | Emu, full rump |
|---|---|---|
| Nutrient Density Score | 87 | 86 |
| Calories | 103 kcal | 112 kcal |
| Protein | 23 g | 23 g |
| Carbohydrate | 0 g | 0 g |
| Dietary fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | 0 g | 0 g |
| Total fat | 0.8 g | 1.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.2 g | 0.4 g |
| Sodium | 120 mg | 90 mg |
| Potassium | 300 mg | 330 mg |
| Calcium | 3 mg | 4 mg |
| Iron | 4.5 mg | 5 mg |
| Magnesium | 42 mg | 40 mg |
| Vitamin C | 0 mg | 0 mg |
| Vitamin A | 0 ug | 4 ug |
| Vitamin E | 0.2 mg | 0.2 mg |
| Cholesterol | 71 mg | 85 mg |
Source: USDA FoodData Central · Public domain
Frequently asked questions
Is Emu, fan fillet, raw healthier than Emu, full rump, raw?
On our Nutrient Density Score, which measures beneficial nutrients per calorie, Emu, fan fillet, raw scores higher, 87 of 100 to 86. Both can fit a balanced diet; the score reflects nutrients per calorie, not a whole-diet judgement.
Which has more protein, Emu, fan fillet, raw or Emu, full rump, raw?
Emu, full rump, raw has more protein, 22.8 g per 100 g to 22.5 g.
Which has fewer calories?
Emu, fan fillet, raw is lower in calories, 103 kcal per 100 g to 112 kcal.