Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders vs Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt
Nutrition comparison per 100g
🏆
Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders
3 wins
🏆
Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt
8 wins
| Nutrient | Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 302 kcal | 90 kcal ★ | Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders has 236% more |
| Protein | 18.88 g ★ | 2.01 g | Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders has 839% more |
| Carbs | 19.29 g | 20.71 g ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 7% more |
| Fat | 16.63 g | 0.15 g ★ | Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders has 10987% more |
| Fiber | 0.9 g | 3.3 g ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 73% more |
| Sugar | 0.24 g ★ | 6.48 g | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 96% more |
| Sodium | 800 mg | 36 mg ★ | Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders has 2122% more |
| Calcium | 18 mg | 38 mg ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 53% more |
| Iron | 0.74 mg ★ | 0.69 mg | Restaurant, family style, chicken tenders has 7% more |
| Vitamin C | 0 mg | 19.6 mg ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 100% more |
| Potassium | 324 mg | 475 mg ★ | Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt has 32% more |
Compare Food Groups
Compare whole food groups for a cleaner, averaged breakdown.