Fish, cusk, raw vs Fish, ling, raw
Original comparison by NutriVerdict
Bottom line: Fish, ling, raw is the more nutrient-dense of the two, scoring 85 of 100 to 84 for Fish, cusk, raw.
Raw ling scores a touch higher, 85 of 100 versus 84 of 100 for raw cusk, despite the two sharing identical calories (87) and protein (19 g) per 100 g. The real separator is sodium: cusk holds just 31 mg per 100 g while ling carries 135 mg, more than four times as much. Fat is nearly the same for both, 0.69 g for cusk and 0.64 g for ling.
Choose cusk when sodium control is the priority, since the calorie and protein numbers are otherwise a wash. Choose ling only if the marginally higher score is the deciding factor, as the underlying nutrition is nearly identical apart from sodium. Given how close the scores are, sodium content is the number that should actually drive this choice.
Head to head, per 100 g
| Metric | Fish, cusk | Fish, ling |
|---|---|---|
| Nutrient Density Score | 84 | 85 |
| Calories | 87 kcal | 87 kcal |
| Protein | 19 g | 19 g |
| Carbohydrate | 0 g | 0 g |
| Dietary fiber | 0 g | 0 g |
| Sugars | - | - |
| Total fat | 0.7 g | 0.6 g |
| Saturated fat | 0.1 g | 0.1 g |
| Sodium | 31 mg | 135 mg |
| Potassium | 392 mg | 379 mg |
| Calcium | 10 mg | 34 mg |
| Iron | 0.8 mg | 0.7 mg |
| Magnesium | 31 mg | 63 mg |
| Vitamin C | 0 mg | 0 mg |
| Vitamin A | 18 ug | 30 ug |
| Vitamin E | - | - |
| Cholesterol | 41 mg | 40 mg |
Source: USDA FoodData Central · Public domain
Frequently asked questions
Is Fish, ling, raw healthier than Fish, cusk, raw?
On our Nutrient Density Score, which measures beneficial nutrients per calorie, Fish, ling, raw scores higher, 85 of 100 to 84. Both can fit a balanced diet; the score reflects nutrients per calorie, not a whole-diet judgement.
Which has more protein, Fish, cusk, raw or Fish, ling, raw?
Fish, cusk, raw has more protein, 19 g per 100 g to 19 g.