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

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

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

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

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

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

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    163 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    29.23 g
    30.08 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
    4.79 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    1.84 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    69 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    378 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    16 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    2.9 mgWIN
  • 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 round, cooked · Foodatron