Pork Chop (bone-in)
27.0gprotein / 100g231 cal · 14.0g fat · $$ · Quality 0.9
Canned Tuna (in water)
26.0gprotein / 100g116 cal · 0.8g fat · $ · Quality 0.9
Per 100g, Pork Chop (bone-in) comes in at 27.0g of protein against Canned Tuna (in water)'s 26.0g, a 1.0g gap that's noticeable across a full day's eating but won't make or break either choice on its own.
Protein quality is essentially matched between the two — both land in a similar tier for amino acid completeness.
On price, Canned Tuna (in water) wins clearly — $ against Pork Chop (bone-in)'s $$.
These two are closer than the comparison headline suggests. Either Pork Chop (bone-in) or Canned Tuna (in water) works well in most contexts — let cost, prep time, and personal preference decide rather than the macros.
Full nutrition comparison
| Per 100g | Pork Chop (bone-in) | Canned Tuna (in water) |
|---|---|---|
| Protein | 27.0g | 26.0g |
| Calories | 231 | 116 |
| Fat | 14.0g | 0.8g |
| Carbs | 0.0g | 0.0g |
| Fiber | 0.0g | 0.0g |
| Quality score | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| Relative cost | $$ | $ |
| Prep time | 15 min | 1 min |
Frequently asked
Which has more protein, pork chop (bone-in) or canned tuna (in water)?
Pork Chop (bone-in) has 27.0g 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 231.