Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked7
VS
Beef pastrami
Beef pastrami2

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 7–2 · 9 categories decided · 1 tie

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 7 of 9 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef chuck roast, cooked for more protein, less sugar, less sodium, more potassium, more calcium, more iron and more magnesium.

Pick Beef pastrami for less saturated fat and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    147 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    21.8 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0.36 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    WIN0 g
    0.1 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    5.82 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    2.68 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    1078 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN235 mg
    210 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    10 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    2.22 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN19 mg
    17 mg
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0.3 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 Beef pastrami · Foodatron