Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Bacon, cooked
Bacon, cooked1
VS
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked6

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Bacon, cooked for more potassium.

Pick Beef chuck roast, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, less sodium, more calcium, more iron and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    100 kcal
    100 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    6.52 g
    10.33 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0.25 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    7.9 g
    6.2 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    2.59 g
    2.44 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    400.18 mg
    16.96 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN98.36 mg
    83.04 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    1.82 mg
    6.01 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    0.27 mg
    0.84 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    5.47 mg
    6.71 mgWIN
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0 mg
  • Vitamin Dmore is better
    —
    —

Winners are decided by deterministic per-metric rules on the stated basis; ties and missing data don’t score (missing ≠ zero). Educational information only — not medical advice.

Bacon, cooked vs Beef chuck roast, cooked · Foodatron