Beef and pork get compared constantly, as if each were a single uniform product with one fixed calorie count, but the truth is that the macros of both meats swing enormously depending on the specific cut. A lean tenderloin and a fatty belly cut from the very same animal can differ in calories by two to three times, which makes comparing “beef” to “pork” in the abstract not especially useful — the cut matters far more than the species.

Macro comparison (per 100 g, raw)

Lean cuts: nearly identical profiles

Comparing the leanest cuts of each — beef tenderloin against pork tenderloin — the gap in calories and fat is surprisingly small. Both come in around 21-22 g of protein per 100 g with a fairly modest fat content when trimmed well. The common assumption that pork is “always fattier” than beef doesn’t hold up on lean cuts at all — it comes down to the specific part of the animal, not the species itself.

Fatty cuts: this is where the gap shows up

The picture changes considerably with fattier cuts. Pork shoulder, belly, and some rib cuts can pack 30 g of fat or more per 100 g, noticeably higher than most fatty beef cuts like brisket or short ribs. That comes down to how fat is distributed in a pig versus a cow — pork fat tends to marble more evenly through the muscle and between layers of meat, rather than sitting mostly around the edge of the cut, as is typical with beef.

Micronutrients: beef’s edge in iron and B12

On individual micronutrients, beef clearly outpaces pork: it’s higher in iron, and in the more bioavailable heme form specifically, along with more zinc and vitamin B12. That makes beef a particularly valuable source of iron for anyone prone to deficiency, since iron from red meat is absorbed more efficiently than iron from plant sources. Pork, on the other hand, stands out for its thiamine (vitamin B1) content — it beats out beef and most other meats on that front.

Saturated fat and what it means in practice

Both beef fat and pork fat contain a substantial share of saturated fatty acids, but the absolute amount of fat in a given portion matters more for total calories and saturated fat load than the species of the animal. A fatty beef brisket can land closer to pork shoulder on this measure than to lean beef tenderloin — meaning the specific cut chosen matters more than choosing beef over pork or vice versa.

Choosing meat for a specific goal

If the goal is maximizing protein while keeping calories down, lean cuts of either meat — tenderloin, trimmed leg, loin — get the job done, with almost no meaningful difference between beef and pork. If iron and B12 are the priority, say for someone managing anemia risk, beef is the more sensible default. And for dishes where richness and texture matter, like braises or roasts, fattier cuts of either meat — including pork shoulder — deliver a more intensely flavored result thanks to the fat, at the cost of noticeably more calories.

The bottom line

Treating beef and pork as two monolithic products doesn’t really hold up: the spread in calories and fat within each type of meat is wider than the average difference between them. The cut and cooking method deserve more attention than the species when choosing meat, except when it comes to micronutrients like iron and B12, where the gap between beef and pork is more pronounced.