Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked4
VS
Pork loin, cooked
Pork loin, cooked3

Beef chuck roast, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef chuck roast, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

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

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar 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
    24.15 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
    17.65 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    6.22 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    98 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    249 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    44 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    0.96 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN19 mg
    17 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 loin, cooked · Foodatron