Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked3
VS
Lamb liver, cooked Leader
Lamb liver, cooked5

Lamb liver, cooked leads 5–3 · 8 categories decided · 1 tie

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Lamb liver, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Lamb liver, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat, more iron, more magnesium and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    220 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    29.23 g
    30.57 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    2.53 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    —
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    8.81 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    3.41 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    56 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    221 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    8 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    2.38 mg
    8.28 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    22 mgWIN
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    4 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 Lamb liver, cooked · Foodatron