Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked3
VS
Pork blade chop, cooked
Pork blade chop, cooked3

Dead heat · 6 categories decided · 4 ties

Beef chuck roast, cooked: 100 g · Pork blade chop, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

It's a dead heat — each wins 3 of 6 match-ups.

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

Pick Pork blade chop, cooked for less saturated fat, more potassium and more calcium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar, magnesium and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    255 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    26.54 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    15.71 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    4.49 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    69 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    259 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    51 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    0.81 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    19 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 Pork blade chop, cooked · Foodatron