Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked4
VS
Beef ribeye steak, cooked
Beef ribeye steak, 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 saturated fat, less sodium and more calcium.

Pick Beef ribeye steak, cooked for 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
    283 kcal
    285 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    23.89 g
  • 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
    21.1 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN6.91 g
    9.24 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    58 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    264 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    12 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    2.49 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    23 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 ribeye steak, cooked · Foodatron