Head-to-Head Analysis

Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen vs Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor

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

Top Pick
Package of Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen

Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor

Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
378 kcal
Energy
100 kcal
0g
Sugars
10g
8.4g
Fat
1g
13.5g
Protein
1g
0g
Salt
50g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen and Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor 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.

Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen is the more energy-dense option here, packing 278 more calories per 100g than Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

In terms of sugar control, Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen takes the lead with only 0g of sugar per 100g, whereas Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor contains 10g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen offers a protein boost with 13.5g per 100g, outperforming Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen or Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor?

It depends on your goals. Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen has 378 calories, while Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor has 100 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen vegan?

No, Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Black Pork Tonkotsu Ramen and Soft Australian Licorice, original flavor?

There is a difference of 278 calories per 100g between the two products.

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