Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked3
VS
Kielbasa
Kielbasa2

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 3–2 · 5 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 3 of 5 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Kielbasa for less saturated fat and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber and sugar.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    226 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    13.1 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    3.9 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    17.6 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    6.23 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    1200 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    —
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    —
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    1.24 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    —
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    14.8 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 Kielbasa · Foodatron