Compare foods

Emu, flat fillet, raw vs Ostrich, fan, raw

Original comparison by NutriVerdict

Bottom line: Emu, flat fillet, raw is the more nutrient-dense of the two, scoring 86 of 100 to 82 for Ostrich, fan, raw.

Emu flat fillet scores higher for nutrient density, 86 of 100 versus ostrich fan's 82 of 100, mainly on calories and fat. Flat fillet has notably fewer calories (102 vs 117) and less fat (0.74 g vs 2.65 g) per 100 g, with protein close between the two (22.2 g vs 21.8 g). Ostrich fan does carry far less sodium, 75 mg against flat fillet's 150 mg.

Choose emu flat fillet when calories and fat are the priority, since it beats ostrich fan clearly on both. Choose ostrich fan when sodium is the bigger concern, as flat fillet runs exactly double its sodium per 100 g. The 4-point score gap favors emu overall, but the sodium trade-off is worth weighing for anyone watching intake closely.

Head to head, per 100 g

MetricEmu, flat filletOstrich, fan
Nutrient Density Score8682
Calories102 kcal117 kcal
Protein22 g22 g
Carbohydrate0 g0 g
Dietary fiber0 g0 g
Sugars0 g0 g
Total fat0.7 g2.7 g
Saturated fat0.2 g1 g
Sodium150 mg75 mg
Potassium240 mg308 mg
Calcium3 mg6 mg
Iron5 mg4.4 mg
Magnesium31 mg22 mg
Vitamin C0 mg0 mg
Vitamin A0 ug0 ug
Vitamin E0.2 mg0.2 mg
Cholesterol71 mg73 mg

Source: USDA FoodData Central · Public domain

Frequently asked questions

Is Emu, flat fillet, raw healthier than Ostrich, fan, raw?

On our Nutrient Density Score, which measures beneficial nutrients per calorie, Emu, flat fillet, raw scores higher, 86 of 100 to 82. Both can fit a balanced diet; the score reflects nutrients per calorie, not a whole-diet judgement.

Which has more protein, Emu, flat fillet, raw or Ostrich, fan, raw?

Emu, flat fillet, raw has more protein, 22.2 g per 100 g to 21.8 g.

Which has fewer calories?

Emu, flat fillet, raw is lower in calories, 102 kcal per 100 g to 117 kcal.

Full Emu, flat fillet profile Full Ostrich, fan profile