Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked3
VS
Pork country-style ribs, cooked Leader
Pork country-style ribs, cooked4

Pork country-style ribs, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Pork country-style ribs, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Pork country-style ribs, cooked for less saturated fat, more potassium, more calcium and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    273 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    26.49 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
    17.71 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    6.3 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    58 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    288 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    34 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    1.34 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    23 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 Pork country-style ribs, cooked · Foodatron