Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef flank steak, cooked Leader
Beef flank steak, cooked4
VS
Beef skirt steak, cooked
Beef skirt steak, 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 saturated fat, less sodium, more potassium and more calcium.

Pick Beef skirt steak, cooked for more protein, more iron and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    202 kcal
    253 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    27.55 g
    28.9 gWIN
  • 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
    15.3 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN3.84 g
    5.55 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN53 mg
    63 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN326 mg
    293 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN18 mg
    7 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    1.8 mg
    2.48 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    22 mg
    23 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 flank steak, cooked vs Beef skirt steak, cooked · Foodatron