Fish, burbot, raw vs Fish, cusk, raw
Original comparison by NutriVerdict
Bottom line: Fish, cusk, raw is the more nutrient-dense of the two, scoring 84 of 100 to 83 for Fish, burbot, raw.
Raw cusk scores slightly higher on nutrient density, 84 of 100 versus burbot's 83 of 100, and the two differ mainly in sodium and calories. Cusk carries just 31 mg of sodium per 100 g, far below burbot's 97 mg, and is a touch lighter, 87 calories against burbot's 90. Protein is close between them, 19 g for cusk and 19.3 g for burbot, with burbot slightly higher in fat, 0.81 g versus 0.69 g.
Choose cusk when lowering sodium and calories is the goal, since it wins on both counts here. Choose burbot when the marginal difference in protein matters more than the sodium gap. The scores are only a point apart, so sodium content is the more meaningful distinction between these two whitefish.
Head to head, per 100 g
| Metric | Fish, burbot | Fish, cusk |
|---|---|---|
| Nutrient Density Score | 83 | 84 |
| Calories | 90 kcal | 87 kcal |
| Protein | 19 g | 19 g |
| Carbohydrate | 0 g | 0 g |
| Dietary fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | - | - |
| Total fat | 0.8 g | 0.7 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.2 g | 0.1 g |
| Sodium | 97 mg | 31 mg |
| Potassium | 404 mg | 392 mg |
| Calcium | 50 mg | 10 mg |
| Iron | 0.9 mg | 0.8 mg |
| Magnesium | 32 mg | 31 mg |
| Vitamin C | 0 mg | 0 mg |
| Vitamin A | 5 ug | 18 ug |
| Vitamin E | - | - |
| Cholesterol | 60 mg | 41 mg |
Source: USDA FoodData Central · Public domain
Frequently asked questions
Is Fish, cusk, raw healthier than Fish, burbot, raw?
On our Nutrient Density Score, which measures beneficial nutrients per calorie, Fish, cusk, raw scores higher, 84 of 100 to 83. Both can fit a balanced diet; the score reflects nutrients per calorie, not a whole-diet judgement.
Which has more protein, Fish, burbot, raw or Fish, cusk, raw?
Fish, burbot, raw has more protein, 19.3 g per 100 g to 19 g.
Which has fewer calories?
Fish, cusk, raw is lower in calories, 87 kcal per 100 g to 90 kcal.