Head-to-Head Analysis

Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates vs The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts

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

Package of Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates

Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts

The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
471 kcal
Energy
545 kcal
105g
Sugars
24.2g
116g
Fat
42.4g
21.1g
Protein
15.2g
0.4g
Salt
1.1g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates and The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts 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, Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates is the clear winner. With 74 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. Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates contains significantly more sugar (105g) compared to the milder The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts (24.2g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates offers a protein boost with 21.1g per 100g, outperforming The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates or The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts?

It depends on your goals. Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates has 471 calories, while The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts has 545 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates vegan?

No, Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Fine Hazel Nut Chocolates and The Original Salty Sweet Mixed Nuts?

There is a difference of 74 calories per 100g between the two products.

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