Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked5
VS
Lamb leg, cooked
Lamb leg, cooked2

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 5–2 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Beef chuck roast, cooked: 100 g · Lamb leg, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Lamb leg, cooked for less sodium and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    246 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    24.81 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    —
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    15.56 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN6.91 g
    7.61 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    48 mg
    43 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    167 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    10 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    2.1 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    20 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 Lamb leg, cooked · Foodatron