Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef bottom round, cooked Leader
Beef bottom round, cooked6
VS
Beef short ribs, cooked
Beef short ribs, cooked1

Beef bottom round, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Beef bottom round, cooked: 100 g · Beef short ribs, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Beef bottom round, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef bottom round, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, less sodium, more potassium, more iron and more magnesium.

Pick Beef short ribs, cooked for more calcium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    230 kcal
    317 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN32.73 g
    25.26 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    10 g
    24.05 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN3.59 g
    10.64 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN42 mg
    70 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN264 mg
    228 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    7 mg
    14 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.71 mg
    2.67 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN21 mg
    20 mg
  • 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.

Beef bottom round, cooked vs Beef short ribs, cooked · Foodatron