Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef flank steak, cooked Leader
Beef flank steak, cooked5
VS
Ham, roasted
Ham, roasted1

Beef flank steak, cooked leads 5–1 · 6 categories decided · 4 ties

Beef flank steak, cooked: 100 g · Ham, roasted: 100 g.

The verdict

Beef flank steak, cooked comes out ahead, winning 5 of 6 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Ham, roasted for less saturated fat.

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

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    202 kcal
    157 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN27.55 g
    25.05 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
    5.5 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    3.84 g
    1.84 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN53 mg
    1327 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    WIN326 mg
    316 mg
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN18 mg
    7 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN1.8 mg
    0.94 mg
  • 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 Ham, roasted · Foodatron