Beef chuck roast, cooked vs Pork country-style ribs, cooked

Beef chuck roast, cooked3

Leader

Pork country-style ribs, cooked4

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

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

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 serving Equal calories

Head-to-head

Energy
100 kcal
100 kcal
Proteinmore is better
WIN10.33 g
9.7 g
Carbohydrate
0 g
0 g
Fibermore is better
0 g
0 g
Total sugarsless is better
0 g
0 g
Total fat
6.2 g
6.49 g
Saturated fatless is better
2.44 g
2.31 gWIN
Sodiumless is better
WIN16.96 mg
21.25 mg
Potassiummore is better
83.04 mg
105.49 mgWIN
Calciummore is better
6.01 mg
12.45 mgWIN
Ironmore is better
WIN0.84 mg
0.49 mg
Magnesiummore is better
6.71 mg
8.42 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.