Ham, chopped, not canned vs Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt
Nutrition comparison per 100g
🏆
Ham, chopped, not canned
3 wins
🏆
Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt
8 wins
| Nutrient | Ham, chopped, not canned | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 221 kcal | 90 kcal ★ | Ham, chopped, not canned has 146% more |
| Protein | 16.5 g ★ | 2.01 g | Ham, chopped, not canned has 721% more |
| Carbs | 0 g | 20.71 g ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 100% more |
| Fat | 16.7 g | 0.15 g ★ | Ham, chopped, not canned has 11033% more |
| Fiber | 0 g | 3.3 g ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 100% more |
| Sugar | 5 g ★ | 6.48 g | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 23% more |
| Sodium | 1194 mg | 36 mg ★ | Ham, chopped, not canned has 3217% more |
| Calcium | 7 mg | 38 mg ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 82% more |
| Iron | 0.83 mg ★ | 0.69 mg | Ham, chopped, not canned has 20% more |
| Vitamin C | 0 mg | 19.6 mg ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 100% more |
| Potassium | 319 mg | 475 mg ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 33% more |
Compare Food Groups
Compare whole food groups for a cleaner, averaged breakdown.