Paratha vs Sarson ka Saag

Per 100 g, Paratha has 300 kcal and 6.7 g protein, while Sarson ka Saag has 88 kcal and 3 g protein.

Paratha

300
kcal per 100 g
6.7 g protein

Sarson ka Saag

88
kcal per 100 g
3 g protein

Nutrition compared, per 100 g

Both foods are shown per 100 g so the numbers are directly comparable. A single serving of each is a different size, so serving-for-serving figures would not tell you much.

Nutrient Paratha Sarson ka Saag Difference
Calories Fewer calories for the same weight 300 kcal 88 kcal better 71%
Protein More protein helps with fullness and muscle 6.7 g better 3 g 55%
Carbs Lower carbs suits low-carb and diabetic diets 36.7 g 5.3 g better 86%
Fat Lower fat means lower calorie density 14.2 g 5.9 g better 59%
Fiber More fibre improves fullness and digestion 2.5 g 3.7 g better 32%
Sugar Less sugar means a gentler blood-sugar response 0.8 g 0.7 g better 13%
"Better" marks the more favourable value for a general healthy-eating goal, not a judgement about the food overall. Differences under 5% are treated as equivalent.

Which is better for weight loss?

Sarson ka Saag

Sarson ka Saag is the lighter choice at 88 kcal per 100 g against 300 for Paratha — about 71% fewer calories for the same weight on your plate. That does not make Paratha a bad food; it means the portion has to be smaller to fit the same calorie budget.

Which is better for muscle gain?

Paratha

Paratha is the stronger protein source, with 6.7 g per 100 g against 3 g for Sarson ka Saag. To match that from Sarson ka Saag you would have to eat roughly 2.2 times the volume, which is usually the limiting factor when you are trying to hit a protein target. Worth noting the trade-off: Sarson ka Saag is more efficient per calorie (3.4 g of protein per 100 kcal against 2.2 g), so it is the better pick if you are also holding calories down.

Paratha vs Sarson ka Saag — common questions

Paratha has more calories — about 300 kcal per 100 g compared with 88 kcal for Sarson ka Saag.

Paratha has more protein — 6.7 g per 100 g against 3 g for Sarson ka Saag.

Sarson ka Saag is the lighter choice at 88 kcal per 100 g against 300 for Paratha — about 71% fewer calories for the same weight on your plate. That does not make Paratha a bad food; it means the portion has to be smaller to fit the same calorie budget.

Paratha is the stronger protein source, with 6.7 g per 100 g against 3 g for Sarson ka Saag. To match that from Sarson ka Saag you would have to eat roughly 2.2 times the volume, which is usually the limiting factor when you are trying to hit a protein target. Worth noting the trade-off: Sarson ka Saag is more efficient per calorie (3.4 g of protein per 100 kcal against 2.2 g), so it is the better pick if you are also holding calories down.

Yes. Combining them gives roughly 388 kcal and 9.7 g protein per 100 g of each. Indian meals are usually built from pairs like this, and mixing a grain with a protein source generally makes for a better-balanced plate than either on its own.

For most everyday goals Sarson ka Saag has the edge, mainly on calorie density. Per 100 g, Paratha has 300 kcal and 6.7 g protein, while Sarson ka Saag has 88 kcal and 3 g protein. Healthy eating depends far more on total daily intake and portion size than on picking one of these two.
Full Paratha nutrition & serving sizes
Full Sarson ka Saag nutrition & serving sizes

Other comparisons

Paratha vs Palak Paneer Paratha vs Chicken Curry Paratha vs Roti Paratha vs Naan Paratha vs Methi Thepla

Data source: nutrition values are drawn from the Indian Nutrient Databank (INDB), Vijayakumar et al., Curr Dev Nutr 2024;8(7):103790, used under CC BY 4.0, and derived from the ICMR-NIN Indian Food Composition Tables. Values vary with recipe, oil used and regional style.

General information only, not medical advice. See our disclaimer.