All 456 rated mentions, most helpful first
“The “trust me”, which is basically just their omakase, is affordable, delicious and leans into more approachable types of fish (think tuna, salmon, crab). It’s got a dark, ambient atmosphere and generally is just really solid.”
H3
“I’m of the very unpopular opinion that sugarfish beats most options under $200.”
H3
“The rice is really REALLY bad. Overcooked so much that it's mushy and overseasoned with vinegar, which takes away a lot of the fish. I've had better sushi rice from Wholefoods.”
H3
“Ngl, Sugarfish is one of the worst omakases I’ve ever had. The price is good but the fish was poorly and hastily sliced, rice was weirdly seasoned and literally crumbled apart at the touch.”
H3
“Sugarfish! Consistently delicious every time!”
H3
“It’s not even good for the price point. You’re better off getting a sushi set at Kanoyama, Hasaki or Dairo. I’ve been to sugar fish a few times. Rice was always mushy and hot (not warm) and the fish way too cold. Too much ponzu sauce. The selection of fish is also pretty boring as well.”
H3
“I think overall for the value its great.”
H3
“Rice game sucks (it falls apart super easily) But their fish is impressively thick. Ive gone three times and i think for the price its probably one of the best value oriented omakases ive had”
H3
“Sugar fish is amateur hour. I hate the warm sushi. Pre-plated omakase in a stack in the kitchen.”
H3
“But it feels pretty generic and corporate, and it’s within $10 for a similar quantity of Omakase at local joints that I prefer. I’ve also had issues with the pieces being massively over sauced, which throws the whole balance off”
H3
“I went once and found it very overrated. The rice was falling apart and fish was meh.”
H3
“It’s consistently mediocre in the same way that same way that other chain restaurants are. Not “bad” per se but it is catering to people who don’t actually like the idea of raw fish and vinegared rice. The fish tastes indistinct and everything is just dreadfully underseasoned”
H3
“you will still have a good meal here.”
H3
“I went once because it was so hyped up. was very disappointed. My rice was also falling apart and just looked sloppy.”
H3
“It’s great sushi for the price and service. They don’t push alcohol on you and they’re great with dietary restrictions. Also they have an excellent toro tasting set.”
H3
“Poorly cut boring fish that’s way too cold. Bland rice that’s way too hot. Albacore tuna? It’s aggressively bad”
H3
“The food was abysmal. Every single dish looked like a mess and had fallen apart by the time it was thrown onto our table. I will never ever go back there.”
H3
“Sugarfish is great. You get value for quality sushi.”
H3
“the rice was falling apart, still hot, and the fish was nasty. Don’t understand how it has the hype”
H3
“Sugar Fish is good, perfectly fine and worth it in my opinion.”
H2
“I love Sugarfish. Every time I have gone the food has been consistently good - and this is across multiple locations both here and in LA.”
H2
“similar vibes, but i like kazunori much more than sugarfish.”
H2
“It’s a good low-cost, low-pressure environment for people whose exposure to sushi was previously drowning California rolls in wasabi gari soy sauce soup and want a step up from that but are intimidated by the cost or experience of an omakase.”
H2
“It was really high quality fish. I am not much of a sushi lover but my partner is. I loved their tuna with ponzu and scallions. We also had their nigori which was great. Experience and service was lovely and so was atmosphere.”
H2
“You want the Olive Garden of sushi but still care about quality? Sugarfish”
H2
“I lived in Tokyo for a decade and I think it’s fine. Perfectly adequate. Not the freshest or most authentic but good for the price.”
H2
“The 50 dollar omakase they have is pretty great”
H2
“Same, I’m an ardent Sugarfish defender - sure it’s not anywhere near the same caliber as an authentic omakase bar, but also, that’s not what it’s trying to be. It’s great for the price and what it is”
H2
“It was horrible. Like comically bad. I did Omakase and paid but dipped out after the 3rd course.”
H2
“It's inexpensive, usually decent. Although one time the union square location served very sub-par hand rolls.”
H2
“Sugarfish could be a good option for entry level ‘omakase’ in that price point.”
H2
“an unadorned or anodyne approach with good quality ingredients to pick up a steady flow of expensed meals.”
H2
“Not worth the wait homie”
H2
“Strong disagree, the most consistent sushi experience and truly high quality every time!”
H2
“it’s very solid for the price and I enjoy going”
H2
“Sugarfish has excellent takeout! They are one of the only places I have ever been that realizes if you're spending $50+pp for takeout, it should be nice.”
H2
“It’s the most mid of “good” sushi imaginable.”
H2
“Rice is also way too hot and the fish is ice cold. Sloppy presentation too.”
H2
“is it amazing sushi? No but their food remains the same for all locations.”
H2
“It’s also much better relatively when you realize you should be comparing it with the standard sushi spot you would get for lunch or a quick dinner rather than an elevated or high end Omakase place.”
H2
“Really enjoy Sugar Fish especially the go to boxes”
H2
“Sugarfish is elite when it comes to strictly salmon, been to a ton of places both here and in sf/la. great quality”
H2
“For the price, it’s okay. It’s a nice, casual sushi place.”
H2
“I don't fully get the hate either, but I can say that there has definitely been an explosion in "affordable" omakase around the city now where you can get more courses, same quality, and cooler atmosphere”
H2
“Sugarfish is pretty mediocre compared to comparable options such as Domodomo”
H2
“sugar fish is incomparable to a $400 omakase.”
H2
“And sorry, but for me Sugarfish is a very good quality affordable sushi binge.”
H2
“But I do know my sushi 🍣. And I found sugarfish to be an amazing value for what you get.”
H2
“I had lunch there few weeks ago in midtown and the rice was hot and crumbled as I tried to pick it up.”
H2
“Their rice game totally sucks! 👏👏”
H2