Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef chuck roast, cooked Leader
Beef chuck roast, cooked4
VS
Wild boar, cooked
Wild boar, cooked3

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

Beef chuck roast, cooked: 100 g · Wild boar, 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 Wild boar, 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
    160 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN29.23 g
    28.3 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
    4.38 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    6.91 g
    1.3 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN48 mg
    60 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    235 mg
    396 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN17 mg
    16 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN2.38 mg
    1.12 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    19 mg
    27 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 Wild boar, cooked · Foodatron