Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked3
VS
Pork loin, roasted Leader
Pork loin, roasted5

Pork loin, roasted leads 5–3 · 8 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Pork loin, roasted comes out ahead, winning 5 of 8 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Pork loin, roasted for less saturated fat, more potassium, more calcium, more magnesium and more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber and sugar.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    248 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    27.09 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
    14.65 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    5.37 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    59 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    408 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    19 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    0.99 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    26 mgWIN
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0.6 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 Pork loin, roasted · Foodatron