Head-to-Head Analysis

emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries vs Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs

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

Package of emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries

emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs

Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
170 kcal
Energy
100 kcal
22g
Sugars
7g
8g
Fat
6g
1g
Protein
1g
0g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries and Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs 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.

emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries is the more energy-dense option here, packing 70 more calories per 100g than Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs. If you are looking for sustained energy or fueling a workout, this higher caloric density might be an advantage.

However, watch out for the sugar content. emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries contains significantly more sugar (22g) compared to the milder Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs (7g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs is undeniably the healthier pick.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries or Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs?

It depends on your goals. emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries has 170 calories, while Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs has 100 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries vegan?

No, emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between emily's dark chocolate covered blueberries and Milano dark chocolate 30 2-packs?

There is a difference of 70 calories per 100g between the two products.

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