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

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

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

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

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

Pick Beef skirt steak, cooked for 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
    283 kcal
    220 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    26.13 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
    12.05 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    4.67 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    75 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    289 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    11 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    2.77 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    24 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 skirt steak, cooked · Foodatron