The problem with "Freeware with open source components" is that it doesn't do justice for the application. Google Chrome Portable is a perfect example: IMHO, Google Chrome Portable should be called "Open source with freeware components" because it is mostly open source.
The percentages actually don't matter at all from a licensing, distribution or legal standpoint, though. The app, as a whole, is still freeware in the overall product. You can't redistribute the whole app under an open source license. You can't use the whole app under an open source license. You can only use and redistribute it under the freeware license. The same applies in apps with multiple open source licenses. If there are portions that are GPLed (more restrictive) and portions that are BSDed (less restrictive), the package as a whole can be redistributed under the GPL. If you had a huge software package that was all BSD binaries and then a single 10k DLL within it that was licensed "for personal use only", the package would not be usable by a business, and it would be important to mention that first. Even if 99.9% of the app could be used by anybody.
If you're interested in classifying ones that are more open source vs less, you could use things like "Freeware / Mostly Open Source" and "Freeware / Partially Open Source". The field used here on PFC is called license, so the first thing that appears should be the overall license. Since it doesn't have to be a set thing, it could even be unique to the app. So Chrome Portable could be "Freeware (Chrome Browser: BSD, Launcher: GPL, Flash: Freeware)". That would be the most accurate as it starts with the license of the overall package and then breaks it down in terms of overall functionality of the pieces of the package.