Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked1
VS
Beef shank, cooked Leader
Beef shank, cooked6

Beef shank, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef shank, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef chuck roast, cooked for less sodium.

Pick Beef shank, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium, more calcium, more iron and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    201 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    29.23 g
    33.68 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    —
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    6.36 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    2.29 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    64 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    447 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    32 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    3.86 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    30 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 shank, cooked · Foodatron