Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef bottom round, cooked Leader
Beef bottom round, cooked7
VS
Beef tongue, cooked
Beef tongue, cooked1

Beef bottom round, cooked leads 7–1 · 8 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef bottom round, cooked comes out ahead, winning 7 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Beef tongue, cooked for more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber and sugar.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    230 kcal
    284 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN32.73 g
    19.29 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
    22.3 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN3.59 g
    8.13 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN42 mg
    65 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN264 mg
    184 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN7 mg
    5 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.71 mg
    2.61 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN21 mg
    15 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    1.3 mgWIN
  • 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 tongue, cooked · Foodatron