What's higher in protein, tuna or chicken? A complete nutritional breakdown

November 9, 2025 •

4 min read

A 3.5-ounce serving of cooked chicken breast contains approximately 26-27 grams of protein, often making it slightly higher in protein than an equivalent serving of canned tuna. This comparison, however, only scratches the surface of the full nutritional picture when deciding what's higher in protein, tuna or chicken, and which is better for your dietary needs.

Quick Summary

This guide compares the protein, calorie, and fat content of tuna and chicken, detailing their unique nutritional benefits and potential drawbacks to help you choose the best option for your health goals.

Key Points

Protein Concentration: Cooked chicken breast typically has a slightly higher protein content per serving than canned tuna.
Calorie and Fat Content: Canned tuna packed in water is generally lower in calories and fat, making it ideal for calorie-controlled diets.
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Tuna is a superior source of heart-healthy omega-3s, which are absent in chicken.
Vitamins and Minerals: Chicken offers more zinc and B vitamins, while tuna provides more vitamin D and selenium.
Mercury Concerns: Due to potential mercury content, particularly in Albacore, tuna consumption should be moderated, while chicken is free of this concern.
Versatility and Preparation: Both are versatile and nutritious, but cooking methods (e.g., grilling chicken vs. adding mayo to tuna) can significantly impact the final nutritional profile.

The Core Comparison: What's Higher in Protein, Tuna or Chicken?

When directly comparing protein density, cooked skinless chicken breast typically contains slightly more protein per ounce than most forms of tuna. A standard 3.5-ounce (100g) serving of cooked chicken breast offers around 31 grams of protein. In contrast, the same size serving of canned chunk light tuna in water provides about 23-26 grams of protein, while canned solid white albacore offers around 29 grams. Therefore, while both are excellent sources, chicken breast holds a slight edge in protein concentration. The real difference, however, lies in their overall nutritional profiles, which is crucial for making an informed choice based on your specific dietary needs.

Beyond Protein: Diving into Nutritional Value

While protein content is a primary consideration, a holistic view of nutrition reveals that tuna and chicken offer distinct sets of benefits. This is especially true when considering fat types, vitamins, and minerals.

Tuna: The Omega-3 Powerhouse

Tuna stands out for its high content of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly DHA and EPA, which are essential for brain health and reducing inflammation. Other notable benefits include:

Vitamins: Rich in Vitamin D, which is vital for bone health and immune function. Tuna contains significantly more Vitamin D than chicken. It is also packed with B vitamins, especially B12 and B6.
Minerals: An exceptional source of selenium, an antioxidant mineral that supports thyroid function and protects against cellular damage. Tuna also provides a good dose of potassium and magnesium.
Lean Profile: Canned tuna in water is notably lower in calories and fat than chicken breast, making it an excellent option for those focused on calorie reduction.

Chicken: The Lean Protein Staple

Chicken breast is a dietary staple for a reason, offering high-quality, complete protein with all nine essential amino acids. Its nutritional strengths include:

Minerals: A great source of zinc, which is crucial for immune function, as well as phosphorus, which is essential for bone health.
Vitamins: Provides a significant amount of B vitamins, including B3 (niacin) and B6, which play a role in energy metabolism.
Muscle Growth Support: The amino acid profile and high protein density make chicken a top choice for muscle growth and repair, particularly when paired with resistance training.

Comparison Table: Tuna vs. Chicken (per 3.5oz / 100g cooked serving)


Nutrient	Cooked Skinless Chicken Breast	Canned Tuna in Water (Drained)	Key Difference
Protein	~31g	~23-26g (Chunk Light) or ~29g (Albacore)	Chicken breast generally has slightly more.
Calories	~165	~100-110	Tuna (in water) is lower.
Total Fat	~3.6g	~0.5-1g	Tuna is lower.
Omega-3s	Minimal	Rich source (EPA & DHA)	Tuna is the clear winner.
Vitamin D	Trace amounts	~50 IU	Tuna is a significant source.
Selenium	Good source	Excellent source	Tuna has significantly more.
Zinc	Good source	Good source	Chicken is often richer.

Considerations for Your Fitness and Health Goals

Your choice between tuna and chicken depends heavily on your overall dietary objectives.

For Muscle Building

Both are excellent, complete protein sources for building muscle. Chicken's slightly higher protein content per calorie can be advantageous for those aiming for maximum protein intake. However, tuna's omega-3 content can support muscle recovery and reduce inflammation, which is also beneficial for athletes. Alternating between the two can provide a comprehensive amino acid and nutrient profile.

For Weight Loss

For calorie-controlled diets, canned tuna packed in water is a lower-calorie option than chicken breast. The high protein content of both foods promotes satiety, helping to reduce overall calorie consumption. The key is mindful portion control and preparation. Grilled or baked chicken without added fat is very lean, while tuna can be prepared with low-fat condiments instead of mayonnaise to keep calories down.

Potential Health Concerns

Mercury in Tuna: Tuna, especially larger varieties like Albacore, contains some mercury. Health guidelines suggest limiting intake, particularly for pregnant women or young children. Smaller species like skipjack generally have lower mercury levels.
Preparation and Contamination: The healthiness of chicken is heavily influenced by preparation. Frying or cooking with excessive oil can increase calorie and fat content. Always cook chicken to a safe internal temperature to prevent foodborne illness.

Making the Right Choice for Your Diet

The final verdict on what's higher in protein, tuna or chicken, depends on how you look at the numbers. While chicken has a slight edge in protein density, the decision ultimately rests on your broader nutritional priorities. For a simple protein count, chicken breast wins. For a lower-calorie, lower-fat option rich in omega-3s, tuna is superior. A balanced approach would involve incorporating both into your diet to reap the unique benefits of each. For example, enjoy a tuna salad sandwich for a low-calorie lunch and grilled chicken breast for a protein-rich dinner.

Ultimately, both lean protein sources are fantastic for a healthy diet, and variety ensures you get a wide range of essential nutrients.

Conclusion

In the competition for protein, chicken breast takes a narrow victory in terms of grams per serving. However, a truly informed decision goes beyond a single metric. Tuna offers essential omega-3 fatty acids and is often lower in calories, while chicken provides key minerals like zinc. By understanding the distinct nutritional profiles of each, you can make the best choice to support your muscle-building, weight loss, and overall wellness goals. Incorporating both into a varied diet is the most effective strategy for reaping a full spectrum of benefits. For further details on dietary fats and cholesterol, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is a reliable resource. The Nutrition Source

Frequently Asked Questions

Both tuna and chicken are excellent for building muscle, as they are complete protein sources containing all essential amino acids. Chicken breast has a slightly higher protein density, but tuna's omega-3s can aid muscle recovery. The best approach is to include both in a balanced diet.

For weight loss, canned tuna packed in water offers fewer calories and less fat per serving than chicken breast, while both are high in protein to promote satiety. The best choice depends on your calorie goals and how you prepare the food.

No, canned tuna packed in water contains significantly less fat than skinless chicken breast. However, tuna packed in oil will have a higher fat and calorie count.

Tuna's omega-3s, particularly EPA and DHA, are crucial for brain and heart health and reduce inflammation, a benefit chicken cannot match. However, chicken offers higher levels of other important micronutrients like zinc. Neither is definitively 'more beneficial' overall, as they offer different key advantages.

Yes, mercury is a potential concern, particularly with larger tuna species like Albacore. The FDA recommends limiting consumption, especially for certain populations. Smaller tuna like skipjack generally have lower mercury levels.

Both are highly versatile. Canned tuna is a convenient, ready-to-eat option for salads and sandwiches, while cooked chicken can be easily added to a wide variety of meals, from wraps to stir-fries, making both staples for meal prep.

Preparation has a major impact. Cooking chicken by grilling or baking without skin keeps it lean, while frying adds significant calories and fat. The same is true for tuna, where mixing it with mayonnaise adds calories, whereas simply adding it to a salad keeps it a low-calorie meal.

Yes, incorporating both into your weekly diet is a great strategy. Varying your protein sources helps ensure you receive a wider range of micronutrients and essential fatty acids while still benefiting from their high protein content.