Compare foods

Fish, ling, raw vs Frog legs, raw

Original comparison by NutriVerdict

Bottom line: Frog legs, raw is the more nutrient-dense of the two, scoring 87 of 100 to 85 for Fish, ling, raw.

Raw frog legs edge out raw ling on nutrient density, scoring 87 of 100 against ling's 85 of 100. The clearest difference is sodium: frog legs sit at 58 mg per 100 g while ling comes in much higher at 135 mg. Frog legs are also lighter overall, 73 calories versus 87 for ling, though ling supplies more protein, 19 g compared to 16.4 g.

Choose frog legs when cutting sodium or calories is the priority, since both figures are noticeably lower here. Choose ling when protein grams per 100 g matter more than the sodium difference. Neither carries carbs or fiber, so the decision really comes down to sodium versus protein, and ling's higher sodium is worth noting if salt intake is a concern.

Head to head, per 100 g

MetricFish, lingFrog legs, raw
Nutrient Density Score8587
Calories87 kcal73 kcal
Protein19 g16 g
Carbohydrate0 g0 g
Dietary fiber0 g0 g
Sugars-0 g
Total fat0.6 g0.3 g
Saturated fat0.1 g0.1 g
Sodium135 mg58 mg
Potassium379 mg285 mg
Calcium34 mg18 mg
Iron0.7 mg1.5 mg
Magnesium63 mg20 mg
Vitamin C0 mg0 mg
Vitamin A30 ug15 ug
Vitamin E-1 mg
Cholesterol40 mg50 mg

Source: USDA FoodData Central · Public domain

Frequently asked questions

Is Frog legs, raw healthier than Fish, ling, raw?

On our Nutrient Density Score, which measures beneficial nutrients per calorie, Frog legs, raw scores higher, 87 of 100 to 85. Both can fit a balanced diet; the score reflects nutrients per calorie, not a whole-diet judgement.

Which has more protein, Fish, ling, raw or Frog legs, raw?

Fish, ling, raw has more protein, 19 g per 100 g to 16.4 g.

Which has fewer calories?

Frog legs, raw is lower in calories, 73 kcal per 100 g to 87 kcal.

Full Fish, ling profile Full Frog legs, raw profile