Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked2
VS
Ground beef, 95% lean, cooked Leader
Ground beef, 95% lean, cooked5

Ground beef, 95% lean, cooked leads 5–2 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

The verdict

Ground beef, 95% lean, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Ground beef, 95% lean, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium, 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
    10.33 g
    15.73 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    6.2 g
    3.62 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    2.44 g
    1.58 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN16.96 mg
    43.29 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    83.04 mg
    229.27 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN6.01 mg
    5.49 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    0.84 mg
    1.74 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    6.71 mg
    14.63 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.

Beef chuck roast, cooked vs Ground beef, 95% lean, cooked · Foodatron