Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked
Beef chuck roast, cooked2
VS
Rabbit, cooked Leader
Rabbit, cooked5

Rabbit, cooked leads 5–2 · 7 categories decided · 2 ties

Beef chuck roast, cooked: 100 g · Rabbit, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Rabbit, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Rabbit, cooked for less saturated fat, less sodium, more potassium, more calcium and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    283 kcal
    197 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    29.06 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    —
  • Total fat
    17.56 g
    8.05 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    2.4 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    48 mg
    47 mgWIN
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    383 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    17 mg
    19 mgWIN
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    2.27 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    21 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 Rabbit, cooked · Foodatron