Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef flank steak, cooked Leader
Beef flank steak, cooked4
VS
Bison, cooked
Bison, cooked2

Beef flank steak, cooked leads 4–2 · 6 categories decided · 4 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef flank steak, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 6 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Bison, cooked for more potassium and more iron.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar, magnesium and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    202 kcal
    238 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN27.55 g
    23.77 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
    15.13 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN3.84 g
    6.46 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN53 mg
    73 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    326 mg
    341 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN18 mg
    13 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    1.8 mg
    3.08 mgWIN
  • Magnesiummore is better
    22 mg
    22 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 Bison, cooked · Foodatron