Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef flank steak, cooked Leader
Beef flank steak, cooked4
VS
Beef heart, cooked
Beef heart, cooked3

Beef flank steak, cooked leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef flank steak, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

Pick Beef flank steak, cooked for less sodium, more potassium, more calcium and more magnesium.

Pick Beef heart, cooked for more protein, less saturated fat and more iron.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    202 kcal
    165 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    27.55 g
    28.48 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0.15 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    9.31 g
    4.73 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    3.84 g
    1.4 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN53 mg
    59 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN326 mg
    219 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN18 mg
    5 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    1.8 mg
    6.38 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN22 mg
    21 mg
  • 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 flank steak, cooked vs Beef heart, cooked · Foodatron