Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef flank steak, cooked
Beef flank steak, cooked3
VS
Ham, roasted Leader
Ham, roasted4

Ham, roasted leads 4–3 · 7 categories decided · 3 ties

Both foods compared at 100 kcal.

The verdict

Ham, roasted comes out ahead, winning 4 of 7 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Ham, roasted for more protein, less saturated fat, more potassium and more magnesium.

Evenly matched on fiber, sugar and vitamin C.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    100 kcal
    100 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    13.64 g
    15.96 gWIN
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    0 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    4.61 g
    3.5 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    1.9 g
    1.17 gWIN
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN26.24 mg
    845.22 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    161.39 mg
    201.27 mgWIN
  • Calciummore is better
    WIN8.91 mg
    4.46 mg
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN0.89 mg
    0.6 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    10.89 mg
    14.01 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 Ham, roasted · Foodatron