Skip to content
Foodatron logoFoodatron
Beef flank steak, cooked Leader
Beef flank steak, cooked4
VS
Kielbasa
Kielbasa1

Beef flank steak, cooked leads 4–1 · 5 categories decided · 2 ties

Each value is per 100 g edible portion.

The verdict

Beef flank steak, cooked comes out ahead, winning 4 of 5 nutrient match-ups.

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

Pick Kielbasa for more vitamin C.

Evenly matched on fiber and sugar.

Equal weight (per 100 g)Common servingEqual calories

Head-to-head

  • Energy
    202 kcal
    226 kcal
  • Proteinmore is better
    WIN27.55 g
    13.1 g
  • Carbohydrate
    0 g
    3.9 g
  • Fibermore is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total sugarsless is better
    0 g
    0 g
  • Total fat
    9.31 g
    17.6 g
  • Saturated fatless is better
    WIN3.84 g
    6.23 g
  • Sodiumless is better
    WIN53 mg
    1200 mg
  • Potassiummore is better
    326 mg
    —
  • Calciummore is better
    18 mg
    —
  • Ironmore is better
    WIN1.8 mg
    1.24 mg
  • Magnesiummore is better
    22 mg
    —
  • Vitamin Cmore is better
    0 mg
    14.8 mgWIN
  • 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 Kielbasa · Foodatron