Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked6
VS
Lamb shoulder, cooked
Lamb shoulder, cooked1

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

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 saturated fat, less sodium, more potassium, more iron and more magnesium.

Pick Lamb shoulder, cooked for more calcium.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    357 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    28.21 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    —
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    26.27 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN6.91 g
    12.74 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    51 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    147 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    27 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    2.11 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN19 mg
    18 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 Lamb shoulder, cooked · Foodatron