Walrus, meat and subcutaneous fat raw (Alaska Native) vs Quinoa, cooked
Nutrition comparison per 100g
🏆
Walrus, meat and subcutaneous fat raw (Alaska Native)
4 wins
🏆
Quinoa, cooked
6 wins
| Nutrient | Walrus, meat and subcutaneous fat raw (Alaska Native) | Quinoa, cooked | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 282 kcal | 120 kcal ★ | Walrus, meat and subcutaneous fat raw (Alaska Native) has 135% more |
| Protein | 16.3 g ★ | 4.4 g | Walrus, meat and subcutaneous fat raw (Alaska Native) has 270% more |
| Carbs | 0 g | 21.3 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Fat | 24.1 g | 1.92 g ★ | Walrus, meat and subcutaneous fat raw (Alaska Native) has 1155% more |
| Fiber | 0 g | 2.8 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sugar | 0 g ★ | 0.87 g | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sodium | 0 mg ★ | 7 mg | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Calcium | 0 mg | 17 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Iron | 9.4 mg ★ | 1.49 mg | Walrus, meat and subcutaneous fat raw (Alaska Native) has 531% more |
| Potassium | 0 mg | 172 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
Compare Food Groups
Compare whole food groups for a cleaner, averaged breakdown.