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

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

Beef chuck roast, cooked: 100 g · Pork tenderloin, cooked: 100 g.

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 calcium and more iron.

Pick Pork tenderloin, cooked for less saturated fat, more potassium 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
    143 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    26.17 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
    3.51 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    1.2 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    57 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    421 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    6 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    1.15 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    29 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 tenderloin, cooked · Foodatron