Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef flank steak, cooked Leader
Beef flank steak, cooked6
VS
Beef short ribs, cooked
Beef short ribs, cooked1

Beef flank steak, cooked leads 6–1 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Beef flank steak, cooked: 100 g · Beef short ribs, cooked: 100 g.

The verdict

Beef flank steak, cooked comes out ahead, winning 6 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Beef short ribs, cooked for more iron.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    202 kcal
    317 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN27.55 g
    25.26 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    9.31 g
    24.05 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN3.84 g
    10.64 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN53 mg
    70 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN326 mg
    228 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN18 mg
    14 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    1.8 mg
    2.67 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    WIN22 mg
    20 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 short ribs, cooked · Foodatron