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

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef chuck roast, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, less sodium and more iron.

Pick Ground lamb, cooked for more potassium, more calcium 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
    283 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    24.75 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
    19.65 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN6.91 g
    8.12 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    81 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    339 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    22 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    1.79 mg
  • 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 Ground lamb, cooked · Foodatron