Amaranth (cooked)
4.7gprotein / 100g102 cal · 1.6g fat · $$$ · Quality 0.75
Quinoa (cooked)
4.4gprotein / 100g120 cal · 1.9g fat · $$ · Quality 0.85
Amaranth (cooked) edges out Quinoa (cooked) by less than half a gram of protein per 100g (4.7g vs 4.4g) — statistically a wash for practical meal planning.
Quality flips the other way, though: Quinoa (cooked) has the stronger amino acid profile (one of the few complete-protein grains (technically a seed)) versus Amaranth (cooked)'s lit_estimate, near-complete pseudo-grain, higher lysine than most grains.
On price, Quinoa (cooked) wins clearly — $$ against Amaranth (cooked)'s $$$.
These two are closer than the comparison headline suggests. Either Amaranth (cooked) or Quinoa (cooked) works well in most contexts — let cost, prep time, and personal preference decide rather than the macros.
Full nutrition comparison
| Per 100g | Amaranth (cooked) | Quinoa (cooked) |
|---|---|---|
| Protein | 4.7g | 4.4g |
| Calories | 102 | 120 |
| Fat | 1.6g | 1.9g |
| Carbs | 18.7g | 21.3g |
| Fiber | 2.1g | 2.8g |
| Quality score | 0.75 | 0.85 |
| Relative cost | $$$ | $$ |
| Prep time | 20 min | 20 min |
Frequently asked
Which has more protein, amaranth (cooked) or quinoa (cooked)?
Amaranth (cooked) has 4.7g of protein per 100g compared to Quinoa (cooked)'s 4.4g.
Which is lower in calories?
Amaranth (cooked) is lower in calories per 100g, at 102 vs the other's 120.