Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw vs Quinoa, cooked
Nutrition comparison per 100g
🏆
Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw
3 wins
🏆
Quinoa, cooked
7 wins
| Nutrient | Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw | Quinoa, cooked | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 685 kcal | 120 kcal ★ | Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 471% more |
| Protein | 8.5 g ★ | 4.4 g | Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 93% more |
| Carbs | 0 g | 21.3 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Fat | 72.38 g | 1.92 g ★ | Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 3670% more |
| Fiber | 0 g | 2.8 g ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sugar | 0 g ★ | 0.87 g | Quinoa, cooked has 100% more |
| Sodium | 26 mg | 7 mg ★ | Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 271% more |
| Calcium | 20 mg ★ | 17 mg | Beef, New Zealand, imported, subcutaneous fat, raw has 18% more |
| Iron | 0.38 mg | 1.49 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 74% more |
| Potassium | 93 mg | 172 mg ★ | Quinoa, cooked has 46% more |
Compare Food Groups
Compare whole food groups for a cleaner, averaged breakdown.