Guides · Comparisons

Almonds vs walnuts: which nut is healthier?

A data-grounded matchup using our density scores and USDA numbers. Almonds win on vitamin E, calcium, and protein per calorie, while walnuts carry more of the omega-3 fat ALA. Here is the verdict by goal.

6 min read

Original analysis by NutriVerdict

This guide is original NutriVerdict analysis. Nutrient figures are sourced from USDA FoodData Central, public domain. It is information, not medical or dietary advice.

Almonds and walnuts sit next to each other in every snack aisle, and both get called "healthy" without much detail. They are not interchangeable. When you line up the USDA numbers side by side, the two nuts win on different fronts. Almonds pack more vitamin E, calcium, and protein into each calorie, which is why almonds earn a Nutrient Density Score of 80 in our database. Walnuts trade some of that micronutrient load for a bigger share of the plant omega-3 fat ALA, and English walnuts land at a score of 45. This guide walks through the real numbers so you can pick the right nut for the goal in front of you.

Calories per handful

Both nuts are calorie-dense, because both are mostly fat. A one ounce handful, about 28 grams, runs roughly 162 calories for almonds and about 183 calories for English walnuts. That gap comes straight from the fat content: almonds carry about 50 grams of fat per 100 grams, while walnuts carry about 65 grams. Neither is a low-calorie food, and that is the honest starting point. Our density scores are per calorie, not per serving, so calorie-heavy foods like nuts never top the scale the way leafy greens do. The question is what those calories buy you.

Where almonds win

Almonds pull ahead on three counts. First, vitamin E: 100 grams of almonds deliver about 25.6 mg, one of the highest figures in our whole food set. English walnuts carry only about 0.7 mg over the same weight, so this is not a close call. Second, calcium: almonds provide about 269 mg per 100 grams against roughly 98 mg for walnuts, which makes almonds a meaningful non-dairy calcium source. Third, protein: almonds hold about 21.2 grams per 100 grams while walnuts hold about 15.2 grams. Add the lower calorie load per gram, and almonds simply deliver more nutrition per calorie across the board, which is what their higher density score reflects.

  • Vitamin E: almonds about 25.6 mg vs walnuts about 0.7 mg per 100 g.
  • Calcium: almonds about 269 mg vs walnuts about 98 mg per 100 g.
  • Protein: almonds about 21.2 g vs walnuts about 15.2 g per 100 g.

Where walnuts win

Walnuts have one standout feature that the density score does not fully capture: they are the richest common nut in alpha-linolenic acid, the plant form of omega-3 fat. Most of the fat in walnuts is polyunsaturated, and a large slice of that is ALA. Almonds, by contrast, are mostly monounsaturated fat with very little omega-3. If you are choosing a nut specifically to add plant omega-3 to a diet that is short on fish, walnuts are the clear pick. Walnuts also edge out almonds slightly on magnesium relative to their profile, though almonds still hold more magnesium per 100 grams at about 270 mg versus about 158 mg. The walnut case rests mainly on fat quality, not on beating almonds across the micronutrient board.

A note on black walnuts

If you can find them, black walnuts score higher than English walnuts in our database, at 54 versus 45. They carry more protein, about 24.1 grams per 100 grams, and less carbohydrate, which lifts their per-calorie nutrition. They are harder to source and have a stronger, more bitter flavor, but on the numbers alone they are the more nutrient-dense walnut.

Watch the processing

The form you buy matters as much as the nut. Glazed and candied versions collapse on nutrition: glazed walnuts drop to a density score of 22 once sugar and sodium are added, and sugar-coated almonds fall to 38. The oils lose the fiber and protein entirely. Raw or dry-roasted, unsalted nuts keep the profile the whole-nut scores are built on. When you compare almonds and walnuts, compare the plain versions, not the dessert versions.

The verdict by goal

There is no single winner, only a winner for each goal. For everyday nutrition per calorie, more protein, more calcium, and far more vitamin E, almonds take it, and their density score of 80 versus 45 says so plainly. For adding plant omega-3 to your week, walnuts are the answer despite the lower overall score. A practical move is to keep both on hand: almonds as the default snack and baking nut, walnuts when you want to work more omega-3 into oatmeal, salads, or a trail mix. You can run the head to head yourself on our compare tool, or browse the full nuts and seeds category to see where every option ranks.

Frequently asked questions

Are almonds or walnuts better for weight management?

Per calorie, almonds give you more, with a density score of 80 versus 45 for English walnuts, plus more protein to help a snack feel filling. A one ounce handful of almonds is about 162 calories against about 183 for walnuts. Neither is low-calorie, so portion size matters more than which nut you pick.

Why do walnuts score lower if they are known for omega-3?

Our density score is a per-calorie measure of overall nutrition and does not single out omega-3 fat. Walnuts carry more calories and fewer of the micronutrients almonds are rich in, so they score lower even though their omega-3 content is a genuine advantage for fat quality.

How much vitamin E do almonds have compared with walnuts?

Almonds carry roughly 25.6 mg of vitamin E per 100 grams, one of the highest figures among whole foods we track. English walnuts carry only about 0.7 mg over the same weight, so almonds are far ahead on this nutrient.

Which is the more nutrient-dense walnut?

Black walnuts score 54 in our database versus 45 for English walnuts, thanks to more protein and less carbohydrate. They are harder to find and stronger in flavor, but on the numbers they edge out the common English variety.