Head-to-Head Analysis

80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck vs Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs

Wondering which one to pick? We analyzed the nutritional profile, ingredients, and vegan status to help you decide.

Top Pick
Package of 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck

80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs

Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
250 kcal
Energy
215 kcal
0g
Sugars
47.5g
19.6g
Fat
0g
17g
Protein
2.5g
0.2g
Salt
0.1g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck and Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs side-by-side, the nutritional differences become quite clear. Both products cater to specific dietary needs, but picking the right one depends on whether you are prioritizing weight loss, muscle gain, or clean eating.

80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck is the more energy-dense option here, packing 35 more calories per 100g than Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

In terms of sugar control, 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck takes the lead with only 0g of sugar per 100g, whereas Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs contains 47.5g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck offers a protein boost with 17g per 100g, outperforming Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck or Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs?

It depends on your goals. 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck has 250 calories, while Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs has 215 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck vegan?

No, 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between 80% Lean/20% Fat Ground Beef Chuck and Organic Soft Dried Smyrna Figs?

There is a difference of 35 calories per 100g between the two products.

Data source: Open Food Facts. Comparisons are generated automatically based on nutritional values per 100g.