Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked6
VS
Corned beef
Corned beef1

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Beef chuck roast, cooked: 100 g · Corned beef: 100 g.

The verdict

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

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

Pick Corned beef for less saturated fat.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    251 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    18.17 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0.47 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    18.98 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    6.34 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    973 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    145 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    8 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    1.86 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN19 mg
    12 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 Corned beef · Foodatron