Tomatoes: fresh cooked vs raw USDA FDC 2709721 vs 2709719
Per 100 g, fresh cooked reports 3.4 g total fat, while raw reports 0.3 g total fat.
The comparison uses two cited USDA records. Their complete source names, household portions, nutrient values, and FoodData Central links remain visible below.
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.
- Tomatoes, fresh, cooked 50 kcal
50 kcal - Tomatoes, raw 20 kcal
20 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 · Tomatoes, fresh, cooked | B · Tomatoes, raw | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaloriesMaterial difference | 50 kcal | 20 kcal | A +30 kcal |
| Protein | 1.1 g | 0.8 g | A +0.3 g |
| Total fatMaterial difference | 3.4 g | 0.3 g | A +3.1 g |
| Carbohydrate | 4.7 g | 4 g | A +0.7 g |
| Dietary fiber | 1.5 g | 1.2 g | A +0.3 g |
| Total sugars | 3.2 g | 2.6 g | A +0.6 g |
| SodiumMaterial difference | 157 mg | 4 mg | A +153 mg |
| Saturated fat | 0.9 g | 0 g | A +0.8 g |
| Potassium | 287 mg | 226 mg | A +61 mg |
| Calcium | 13 mg | 10 mg | A +3 mg |
| Iron | 0.3 mg | 0.2 mg | A +0.1 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
Every material primary-nutrient difference on this page is numerically higher in A (3 of 3).
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 20 kcal, compared with 50 kcal in the other record—a difference of 30 kcal.
Which reports more protein?
Record A
Record A reports 1.1 g, compared with 0.8 g in the other record—a difference of 0.3 g.
Which reports more fiber?
Record A
Record A reports 1.5 g, compared with 1.2 g in the other record—a difference of 0.3 g.
Which reports less sodium?
Record B
Record B reports 4 mg, compared with 157 mg in the other record—a difference of 153 mg.
What differs in the source descriptions
The exact names carry information the numbers cannot.
USDA assigns both records to “Tomatoes,” but the topic label is broad. Record A is “Tomatoes, fresh, cooked.” Record B is “Tomatoes, raw.” 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 2 interpretable distinctions. 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 | No matching controlled term in the source name | raw |
| Source form | fresh | No matching controlled term in the source name |
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 120 g. Record B uses USDA reference amount at 90 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 two representative amounts differ by 30 g (25% of the larger amount). This is why the main table holds mass at 100 g. After selecting the closer description, use its household measure or a gram estimate for the amount actually eaten.
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 whole110 g
- 1 cup240 g
- USDA reference amount120 g
Record B measures
- 1 slice20 g
- 1 grape tomato8 g
- 1 cherry17 g
- 1 Italian tomato60 g
- 1 plum tomato60 g
- 1 whole125 g
- 1 cup180 g
- USDA reference amount90 g
One shared household label
1 cup: 240 g in A vs 180 g in B
The household label matches, but the source gram weights differ. These values scale each record by its own listed grams; they are practical portion context, not an equal-mass comparison.
| Nutrient | A · 240 g | B · 180 g |
|---|---|---|
| Calories | 120 kcal | 36 kcal |
| Protein | 2.6 g | 1.5 g |
| Dietary fiber | 3.6 g | 2.2 g |
| Sodium | 377 mg | 7 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 Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round average, Oil or table fat, NFS, Salt, table. Record B’s include Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round average, Tomato, roma, Tomatoes, grape, raw. Ingredient-code overlap is 20%, and normalized listed-input-weight variation is 40%.
Record A · 3 coded inputs
Tomatoes, fresh, cooked
- Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round averageIngredient code 11529 · open source index96.8% of listed input weight
- Oil or table fat, NFSIngredient code 81200100 · open source index2.9% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.3% of listed input weight
Record B · 3 coded inputs
Tomatoes, raw
- Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round averageIngredient code 11529 · open source index60% of listed input weight
- Tomato, romaIngredient code 10026130% of listed input weight
- Tomatoes, grape, rawIngredient code 10014710% of listed input weight
1 shared coded input
The largest shared entries include Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round average. Shared codes can still carry different listed weights.
2 A-only and 2 B-only coded inputs
A-only entries include Oil or table fat, NFS, Salt, table. B-only entries include Tomato, roma, Tomatoes, grape, raw.
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.
- NFS means “not further specified.” The record intentionally leaves the exact subtype, size, or preparation unresolved.
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 2 documented description dimensions, while the listed formulations show 20% ingredient-code overlap and 40% 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 Tomatoes, fresh, cooked versus Tomatoes, raw. Links are chosen by record identity, controlled contrast, formulation input, nutrient spread, or serving context—not by loose keyword similarity.
Equal-weight result
Tomatoes, fresh, cooked is higher in calories per 100 g
Tomatoes, fresh, cooked reports 50 kcal versus 20 kcal for Tomatoes, raw: a 30 kcal difference when both are normalized to 100 g.
Inspect the underlying evidenceCheck the weight before comparing serving totals
Source amounts span 90–120 g
Tomatoes, raw uses USDA source amount (90 g), while Tomatoes, fresh, cooked uses USDA source amount (120 g). Use per 100 g for equal-weight composition; use the serving column only when those named source amounts answer your question.
Record identity is part of the estimate
Distinguish “Tomatoes, fresh, cooked” from “Tomatoes, raw”
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 Tomatoes, fresh, cooked versus Tomatoes, raw, each path states why the destination belongs here, so you can distinguish a true evidentiary connection from a merely similar label.
Tomatoes, fresh, cooked and Tomatoes, raw are 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 20 kcal in Tomatoes, raw to 50 kcal in Tomatoes, fresh, cooked, all per 100 g.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Tomatoes, canned, cooked vs Tomatoes, rawTomatoes, raw 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 raw; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Oil or table fat, NFSUSDA input 81200100 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 3–3 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 Salt, tableUSDA input 2047 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 0.3–0.3 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 Test a nearby record choice Tomatoes, canned, reduced sodium, cooked vs Tomatoes, fresh, cookedTomatoes, fresh, cooked is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Source form: canned versus fresh; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path Put the observed spread in corpus context Sodium: density and serving contextIn this page’s records, sodium runs from 4 mg in Tomatoes, raw to 157 mg in Tomatoes, fresh, cooked, all per 100 g.
Follow this evidence path