Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked3
VS
Pork shoulder, cooked Leader
Pork shoulder, cooked5

Pork shoulder, cooked leads 5–3 · 8 categories decided · 2 ties

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

The verdict

Pork shoulder, cooked 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 shoulder, cooked 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
    100 kcal
    100 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN10.33 g
    9.88 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
    6.41 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    2.44 g
    2.3 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN16.96 mg
    26.64 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    83.04 mg
    125.87 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    6.01 mg
    13.9 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN0.84 mg
    0.54 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    6.71 mg
    8.11 mgWIN
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    0.12 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 shoulder, cooked · Foodatron