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

Bison, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Bison, 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 Bison, 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
    238 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    23.77 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
    15.13 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    6.46 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    73 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    341 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    13 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    3.08 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    22 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 Bison, cooked · Foodatron