Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked6
VS
Beef tongue, cooked
Beef tongue, cooked2

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 6–2 · 8 categories decided · 2 ties

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Beef tongue, cooked for more iron and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber and sugar.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    100 kcal
    100 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN10.33 g
    6.79 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    6.2 g
    7.85 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN2.44 g
    2.86 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN16.96 mg
    22.89 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN83.04 mg
    64.79 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN6.01 mg
    1.76 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    0.84 mg
    0.92 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN6.71 mg
    5.28 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0.46 mgWIN
  • 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 tongue, cooked · Foodatron