Head-to-Head Analysis

Coconutchocolate vs Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips

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

Package of Coconutchocolate

Coconutchocolate

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips

Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
403.8 kcal
Energy
536 kcal
25g
Sugars
0g
17.3g
Fat
35.7g
23.1g
Protein
7.1g
0.8g
Salt
0.8g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Coconutchocolate and Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips 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.

For calorie-conscious consumers, Coconutchocolate is the clear winner. With 132 fewer calories per 100g than its competitor, it allows for more volume while keeping your energy intake in check.

However, watch out for the sugar content. Coconutchocolate contains significantly more sugar (25g) compared to the milder Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Coconutchocolate offers a protein boost with 23.076923076923g per 100g, outperforming Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Coconutchocolate or Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips?

It depends on your goals. Coconutchocolate has 403.84615384615 calories, while Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips has 536 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Coconutchocolate vegan?

No, Coconutchocolate is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Coconutchocolate and Original Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips?

There is a difference of 132 calories per 100g between the two products.

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