Culver's North Atlantic Cod Fish Sandwich Vs McDonald's Filet-O-Fish: Who Makes The Better Fish Sandwich? - Mashed

What the report says

Mashed published a head-to-head review comparing Culver’s North Atlantic Cod Sandwich with McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish, concluding that Culver’s offered the stronger fast-food fish sandwich. The review, written by Sam Zwick and published July 26, 2026, tested one sandwich from each chain and evaluated them on taste, texture, perceived quality and value.

The article framed McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish as the long-running standard in the category, noting its national presence since 1965 and its origin story tied to Cincinnati franchisee Lou Groen and former McDonald’s leader Ray Kroc. Mashed described the McDonald’s sandwich as a simple combination of wild-caught Alaskan pollock, American cheese, tartar sauce and a steamed bun. The reviewer found it acceptable but not especially crisp, with tartar sauce providing much of the flavor.

Culver’s sandwich, made with hand-battered cod on a toasted hoagie roll with lettuce, shredded cheddar and tartar sauce, was judged larger and more satisfying. Mashed praised the fish portion, crispy breading, bun and toppings, while noting that the tartar sauce was less impressive than McDonald’s version. The review said Culver’s cost $8.09 for the sandwich alone, compared with $6.49 for the Filet-O-Fish at the location or ordering method used.

Mashed also listed nutrition figures: 380 calories for the Filet-O-Fish and 600 calories for Culver’s North Atlantic Cod Sandwich, with the Culver’s item higher in fat, protein and sodium. The comparison matters for readers choosing between two widely recognized fast-food fish options, though the findings reflect one reviewer’s experience rather than a broad consumer survey.