Chickpeas (cooked)
8.9gprotein / 100g164 cal · 2.6g fat · $ · Quality 0.65
Amaranth (cooked)
4.7gprotein / 100g102 cal · 1.6g fat · $$$ · Quality 0.75
Chickpeas (cooked) delivers a clearly higher protein density than Amaranth (cooked) — 8.9g vs 4.7g per 100g, a gap of 4.2g that adds up fast across multiple servings.
Amaranth (cooked) pulls ahead on protein quality specifically (lit_estimate, near-complete pseudo-grain, higher lysine than most grains), even in categories where Chickpeas (cooked) wins on raw grams.
Chickpeas (cooked) is also the cheaper option ($ vs $$$), which matters if you're eating either one regularly rather than occasionally.
Chickpeas (cooked)'s typical serving also delivers more leucine (640mg vs Amaranth (cooked)'s 380mg) — relevant if the goal is maximizing the muscle-protein-synthesis trigger per meal, not just total grams.
With protein content this close, cost is the more useful tiebreaker: Chickpeas (cooked) delivers a similar protein profile to Amaranth (cooked) at a noticeably lower price per serving.
Full nutrition comparison
| Per 100g | Chickpeas (cooked) | Amaranth (cooked) |
|---|---|---|
| Protein | 8.9g | 4.7g |
| Calories | 164 | 102 |
| Fat | 2.6g | 1.6g |
| Carbs | 27.4g | 18.7g |
| Fiber | 7.6g | 2.1g |
| Quality score | 0.65 | 0.75 |
| Relative cost | $ | $$$ |
| Prep time | 90 min | 20 min |
Frequently asked
Which has more protein, chickpeas (cooked) or amaranth (cooked)?
Chickpeas (cooked) has 8.9g of protein per 100g compared to Amaranth (cooked)'s 4.7g.
Which is lower in calories?
Amaranth (cooked) is lower in calories per 100g, at 102 vs the other's 164.