Chicken fillet sandwich: fried vs grilled USDA FDC 2707003 vs 2707005
Per 100 g, fried reports 281 calories, while grilled reports 226 calories.
The comparison uses two cited USDA records. Their complete source names, household portions, nutrient values, and FoodData Central links remain visible below.
Record A · FDC 2707003
Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food
Check this record in FoodData Central ↗Record B · FDC 2707005
Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food
Check this record in FoodData Central ↗Highlighted difference
Calories at the same 100-gram weight
Bar length shows the two cited values on one shared denominator. It does not rank either food or establish why they differ.
-
281 kcal -
226 kcal
Shared basis: 100 g · kcal
Equal-weight evidence
Nutrition per 100 grams
Both columns use the same mass, which compares nutrient concentration without allowing the two representative source amounts to change the denominator. “A +” or “B +” reports the arithmetic difference between the cited values; it is not a quality score.
On smaller screens, focus a comparison table and scroll horizontally to read every column.
| Nutrient | A · Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast… | B · Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast… | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaloriesMaterial difference | 281 kcal | 226 kcal | A +55 kcal |
| ProteinMaterial difference | 12.2 g | 21.5 g | B +9.3 g |
| Total fatMaterial difference | 13.5 g | 6.2 g | A +7.3 g |
| CarbohydrateMaterial difference | 27.5 g | 19.4 g | A +8.1 g |
| Dietary fiberMaterial difference | 1.7 g | 0.7 g | A +1 g |
| Total sugars | 3.1 g | 2.8 g | A +0.3 g |
| SodiumMaterial difference | 571 mg | 430 mg | A +141 mg |
| Saturated fatMaterial difference | 3.1 g | 1.4 g | A +1.7 g |
| Potassium | 209 mg | 258 mg | B +49 mg |
| Calcium | 77 mg | 60 mg | A +17 mg |
| Iron | 1.8 mg | 1.6 mg | A +0.2 mg |
Values come from the two cited USDA FoodData Central Survey Foods records. Feast does not average records, impute missing values, or infer a nutrient from the food name.
Read the table by question
The material primary-nutrient differences run in both directions: A is higher on 5, while B is higher on 1.
These answers describe concentration per 100 grams. “More” and “less” identify the arithmetic direction only; they do not decide which record is a better match or which food is better for a person.
Which reports fewer calories?
Record B
Record B reports 226 kcal, compared with 281 kcal in the other record—a difference of 55 kcal.
Which reports more protein?
Record B
Record B reports 21.5 g, compared with 12.2 g in the other record—a difference of 9.3 g.
Which reports more fiber?
Record A
Record A reports 1.7 g, compared with 0.7 g in the other record—a difference of 1 g.
Which reports less sodium?
Record B
Record B reports 430 mg, compared with 571 mg in the other record—a difference of 141 mg.
What differs in the source descriptions
The exact names carry information the numbers cannot.
USDA assigns both records to “Chicken fillet sandwiches,” but the topic label is broad. Record A is “Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food.” Record B is “Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food.” Feast paired them because their contrast-neutral food identities are an exact match, not merely because they share a generic category.
The controlled name parser found 1 interpretable distinction. These labels organize wording already present in the names; they do not establish that a distinction caused a nutrient difference.
| Description dimension | Record A | Record B |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation wording | fried | grilled |
Even a clean name contrast can carry hidden companions. A fried record may also include coating; a restaurant record can use a different recipe; a reduced-sodium description can differ in more than salt; and a source amount can reflect a different reporting convention. That is why this page reports the complete pair rather than treating one word as an intervention.
Portion context
A representative source amount is not a shared “serving.”
Record A uses USDA reference amount at 140 g. Record B uses USDA reference amount at 140 g. Those labels and gram weights come from their respective records. They are useful for scaling the chosen profile, but they are not recommendations and need not describe equal amounts.
The representative amounts do not cross Feast’s material portion-difference threshold of both 15 grams and 20%. They are still separate source measures, so the 100-gram table remains the appropriate place for an equal-weight comparison.
A cup, piece, slice, sandwich, fillet, or fluid ounce can have different gram weights across records. A matching label is not enough: check the listed grams. If accuracy matters more than convenience, weighing the food or using a current package label can be more specific than a generic survey-food measure.
Record A measures
- 1 regular sandwich140 g
- 1 large sandwich280 g
- 1 submarine280 g
- 1 miniature/slider70 g
- USDA reference amount140 g
Record B measures
- 1 regular sandwich140 g
- 1 large sandwich280 g
- 1 submarine280 g
- 1 miniature/slider70 g
- USDA reference amount140 g
One shared household label
1 regular sandwich: 140 g in A vs 140 g in B
Here the household label and listed gram weight match at displayed precision, so this particular table is also an equal-mass comparison. The values remain specific to these two source records, not a universal weight for every 1 regular sandwich.
| Nutrient | A · 140 g | B · 140 g |
|---|---|---|
| Calories | 393 kcal | 316 kcal |
| Protein | 17.1 g | 30.1 g |
| Dietary fiber | 2.4 g | 1 g |
| Sodium | 799 mg | 602 mg |
USDA source formulation evidence
The listed inputs provide another way to audit the match.
FNDDS includes input-food rows behind each standardized survey-food record. Record A’s leading listed inputs include Chicken tenders, breaded, frozen, prepared, Rolls, hamburger or hotdog, plain, Industrial oil as ingredient in food, Salt, table. Record B’s include Chicken breast, grilled without sauce, skin not eaten, Rolls, hamburger or hotdog, plain, Industrial oil as ingredient in food, Salt, table. Ingredient-code overlap is 60%, and normalized listed-input-weight variation is 61%.
Record A · 4 coded inputs
Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food
- Chicken tenders, breaded, frozen, preparedIngredient code 22978 · open source index58.1% of listed input weight
- Rolls, hamburger or hotdog, plainIngredient code 18350 · open source index37.6% of listed input weight
- Industrial oil as ingredient in foodIngredient code 99998210 · open source index4.1% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.2% of listed input weight
Record B · 4 coded inputs
Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food
- Chicken breast, grilled without sauce, skin not eatenIngredient code 24123301 · open source index59.8% of listed input weight
- Rolls, hamburger or hotdog, plainIngredient code 18350 · open source index38.7% of listed input weight
- Industrial oil as ingredient in foodIngredient code 99998210 · open source index1.4% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.1% of listed input weight
3 shared coded inputs
The largest shared entries include Rolls, hamburger or hotdog, plain, Industrial oil as ingredient in food, Salt, table. Shared codes can still carry different listed weights.
1 A-only and 1 B-only coded inputs
A-only entries include Chicken tenders, breaded, frozen, prepared. B-only entries include Chicken breast, grilled without sauce, skin not eaten.
Important: repeated rows carrying the same ingredient code are combined before the shares and overlap are calculated. These weights belong to USDA’s source formulation: they are not a reconstructed plate, final cooked yield, visitor serving, ingredient declaration, or estimate of what is visible in a photo. USDA’s FNDDS documentation explains that these calculation recipes can represent multiple variants, may include retention or moisture adjustments, and are not product-label ingredient lists.
Choosing the closer record
Match context first; scale second.
- 01
Read both names literally
Compare cooking method, coating, edible skin or peel, sauce, additions, venue, source form, and food subtype. For this pair, the full A and B descriptions above are the evidence—not shortened search labels.
- 02
Use listed inputs as a check
If the name still leaves ambiguity, compare the leading and unique source inputs. They can reveal that two near names refer to meaningfully different standardized formulations, but they do not reconstruct your dish.
- 03
Choose an amount for that record
After choosing A or B, use its own named measure and gram weight. Do not transfer a cup, slice, or “typical amount” from the other record as if the measures were interchangeable.
- 04
Account for missing details
Brand, current restaurant recipe, cooking oil, drained weight, toppings, substitutions, and unfinished portions may not be captured. A label or weighed recipe can supersede a generic reference when it better matches the actual food.
Limits and responsible interpretation
This is a comparison of records, not a causal study.
The two records come from 2021–2023 FoodData Central Survey Foods data. The nutrient table faithfully compares their published values on the same weight basis. It does not measure two plates prepared at the same time, isolate one ingredient, or estimate the uncertainty around either value.
For this pair, the source names differ across 1 documented description dimension, while the listed formulations show 60% ingredient-code overlap and 61% normalized listed-weight variation. Moisture, ingredient proportions, preparation, and record construction can therefore move together. The page can describe the combined record difference; it cannot isolate the effect of one word.
A higher or lower number is not an overall verdict. Protein, fiber, sodium, energy, fat, micronutrients, preferences, allergies, budget, portion, and an individual’s goals answer different questions. Feast therefore reports directions and magnitudes without applying a universal “healthier” label.
This page is educational and does not diagnose a condition, prescribe a target, or replace advice from a qualified professional. For an allergy, medically directed diet, or strict ingredient limit, use verified ingredient information and guidance appropriate to that situation.
How this page qualified
A page is published only when the pair clears materiality and diversity gates.
Both records must occupy the same USDA survey-food topic and share a close food identity after a controlled vocabulary separates preparation, edible-part, source, claim, crust, and sauce wording. Exact contrast-neutral identities receive priority. Close ingredient or form substitutions can qualify when name overlap remains high and the numerical evidence is material.
For primary nutrients, Feast requires both an absolute and relative difference: at least 20 kcal and 12% for energy; 2 g and 18% for protein or fat; 5 g and 15% for carbohydrate; 1 g and 20% for fiber; 4 g and 20% for sugars; or 100 mg and 20% for sodium. A focused one-nutrient pair also needs a material representative-amount or formulation distinction. Rounding-only pairs are not published.
Unordered FDC IDs define a canonical pair, so reversing A and B cannot create another page. Each source record can appear twice at most, each USDA topic contributes no more than 40 pages, and closely repeated identity families are capped. Those rules produced a selective comparison library rather than every mathematical combination in the corpus.
Read the complete nutrition-page methodology for import, nutrient mapping, portion scaling, Daily Value, and uncertainty rules.
Decision support from the exact records on this page
Turn source data into a better next decision
These conclusions and reading paths are computed from 2 exact records behind Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food versus Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food. Links are chosen by record identity, controlled contrast, formulation input, nutrient spread, or serving context—not by loose keyword similarity.
Equal-weight result
Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food is higher in calories per 100 g
Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food reports 281 kcal versus 226 kcal for Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food: a 55 kcal difference when both are normalized to 100 g.
Inspect the underlying evidenceThese listed servings have equal weights
2 listed servings each weigh 140 g
The 2 records with a listed serving weight on this page each use 140 g. Their serving totals therefore compare equal weights, even if the household labels differ. Match the preparation and adjust the weight to the amount you eat.
Record identity is part of the estimate
Distinguish “Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food” from “Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food”
These are separate USDA records with separate formulations or survey descriptions. Match preparation, additions, and the named household amount before borrowing either record’s nutrients.
Inspect the underlying evidenceContextual knowledge graph
Follow the relationship that matches your question
For Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food versus Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food, each path states why the destination belongs here, so you can distinguish a true evidentiary connection from a merely similar label.
Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food is explicitly linked in this guide, which separates direct name matches from contextual variants.
Follow this evidence path Best next guide for this exact record Chicken fillet sandwich, grilledChicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food is explicitly linked in this guide, which separates direct name matches from contextual variants.
Follow this evidence path Put the observed spread in corpus context Calories: density and serving contextIn this page’s records, calories runs from 226 kcal in Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food to 281 kcal in Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food, all per 100 g.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Chicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food vs Chicken fillet sandwich, from school cafeteriaChicken fillet sandwich, fried, from fast food is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Preparation wording: fried versus No matching controlled term in the source name; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Chicken fillet sandwich, from school cafeteria vs Chicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast foodChicken fillet sandwich, grilled, from fast food is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Preparation wording: No matching controlled term in the source name versus grilled; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Chicken breast, grilled without sauce, skin not eatenUSDA input 24123301 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 85–85 g across those source formulations. These are source-formulation input weights, not plated or serving weights. Follow the code to inspect every represented occurrence.
Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Chicken tenders, breaded, frozen, preparedUSDA input 22978 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 85–85 g across those source formulations. These are source-formulation input weights, not plated or serving weights. Follow the code to inspect every represented occurrence.
Follow this evidence path