Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked4
VS
Beef heart, cooked
Beef heart, cooked3

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

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

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

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

Pick Beef heart, cooked for less saturated fat, 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
    283 kcal
    165 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    28.48 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0.15 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    4.73 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    1.4 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    59 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    219 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    5 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    6.38 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    21 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 Beef heart, cooked · Foodatron