Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked4
VS
Beef eye of round, cooked
Beef eye of round, cooked3

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Beef chuck roast, cooked: 100 g · Beef eye of round, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Beef eye of round, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat and more potassium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    171 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    29.23 g
    29.79 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    4.83 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    1.66 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    66 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    408 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    16 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    1.86 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN19 mg
    15 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 chuck roast, cooked vs Beef eye of round, cooked · Foodatron