Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef brisket, cooked Leader
Beef brisket, cooked5
VS
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked1

Beef brisket, cooked leads 5–1 · 6 categories decided · 4 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef brisket, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 6 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef brisket, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium, more iron and more magnesium.

Pick Beef chuck roast, cooked for less sodium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar, calcium and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    221 kcal
    283 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN32.21 g
    29.23 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    9.24 g
    17.56 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN3.64 g
    6.91 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    52 mg
    48 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN254 mg
    235 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    17 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.75 mg
    2.38 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN21 mg
    19 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 brisket, cooked vs Beef chuck roast, cooked · Foodatron