Bison (ground)
28.0gprotein / 100g146 cal · 2.4g fat · $$$$ · Quality 0.92
Canned Tuna (in water)
26.0gprotein / 100g116 cal · 0.8g fat · $ · Quality 0.9
Bison (ground) carries 2.0g more protein per 100g than Canned Tuna (in water) (28.0g vs 26.0g) — a real but modest edge.
Neither has a meaningful edge on protein quality; they're close enough on amino acid profile that it isn't a differentiator here.
Canned Tuna (in water) is the more budget-friendly pick ($ vs $$$$ for Bison (ground)), worth weighing if cost matters more than the other differences here.
With protein content this close, cost is the more useful tiebreaker: Canned Tuna (in water) delivers a similar protein profile to Bison (ground) at a noticeably lower price per serving.
Full nutrition comparison
| Per 100g | Bison (ground) | Canned Tuna (in water) |
|---|---|---|
| Protein | 28.0g | 26.0g |
| Calories | 146 | 116 |
| Fat | 2.4g | 0.8g |
| Carbs | 0.0g | 0.0g |
| Fiber | 0.0g | 0.0g |
| Quality score | 0.92 | 0.9 |
| Relative cost | $$$$ | $ |
| Prep time | 10 min | 1 min |
Frequently asked
Which has more protein, bison (ground) or canned tuna (in water)?
Bison (ground) has 28.0g 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 146.