Head-to-Head Analysis

Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added vs Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp

Wondering which one to pick? We analyzed the nutritional profile, ingredients, and vegan status to help you decide.

Package of Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added

Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp

Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
124 kcal
Energy
82.4 kcal
0g
Sugars
0g
0.4g
Fat
1.8g
29.2g
Protein
17.6g
0.3g
Salt
0.4g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added and Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp side-by-side, the nutritional differences become quite clear. Both products cater to specific dietary needs, but picking the right one depends on whether you are prioritizing weight loss, muscle gain, or clean eating.

Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added is the more energy-dense option here, packing 42 more calories per 100g than Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

Looking to build muscle? Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added offers a protein boost with 29.2g per 100g, outperforming Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added or Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp?

It depends on your goals. Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added has 124 calories, while Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp has 82.4 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added vegan?

No, Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Solid White Albacore, Wild Tuna, In Water, No Salt Added and Jumbo cooked E-Z peel shrimp?

There is a difference of 42 calories per 100g between the two products.

Data source: Open Food Facts. Comparisons are generated automatically based on nutritional values per 100g.