Beef Sirloin Steak (lean)
29.0gprotein / 100g183 cal · 6.9g fat · $$$ · Quality 0.92
Canned Tuna (in water)
26.0gprotein / 100g116 cal · 0.8g fat · $ · Quality 0.9
Per 100g, Beef Sirloin Steak (lean) comes in at 29.0g of protein against Canned Tuna (in water)'s 26.0g, a 3.0g gap that's noticeable across a full day's eating but won't make or break either choice on its own.
Protein quality is essentially matched between the two — both land in a similar tier for amino acid completeness.
On price, Canned Tuna (in water) wins clearly — $ against Beef Sirloin Steak (lean)'s $$$.
Beef Sirloin Steak (lean)'s typical serving also delivers more leucine (2350mg vs Canned Tuna (in water)'s 2100mg) — relevant if the goal is maximizing the muscle-protein-synthesis trigger per meal, not just total grams.
With protein content this close, cost is the more useful tiebreaker: Canned Tuna (in water) delivers a similar protein profile to Beef Sirloin Steak (lean) at a noticeably lower price per serving.
Full nutrition comparison
| Per 100g | Beef Sirloin Steak (lean) | Canned Tuna (in water) |
|---|---|---|
| Protein | 29.0g | 26.0g |
| Calories | 183 | 116 |
| Fat | 6.9g | 0.8g |
| Carbs | 0.0g | 0.0g |
| Fiber | 0.0g | 0.0g |
| Quality score | 0.92 | 0.9 |
| Relative cost | $$$ | $ |
| Prep time | 15 min | 1 min |
Frequently asked
Which has more protein, beef sirloin steak (lean) or canned tuna (in water)?
Beef Sirloin Steak (lean) has 29.0g of protein per 100g compared to Canned Tuna (in water)'s 26.0g.
Which is lower in calories?
Canned Tuna (in water) is lower in calories per 100g, at 116 vs the other's 183.