Head-to-Head Analysis

Lower sugar maple brown sugar vs Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes

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

Package of Lower sugar maple brown sugar

Lower sugar maple brown sugar

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes

Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
343 kcal
Energy
20.7 kcal
17.1g
Sugars
2.5g
0g
Fat
0g
8.6g
Protein
0.8g
1g
Salt
0.6g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Lower sugar maple brown sugar and Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes 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.

Lower sugar maple brown sugar is the more energy-dense option here, packing 322 more calories per 100g than Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes. 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. Lower sugar maple brown sugar contains significantly more sugar (17.1g) compared to the milder Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes (2.48g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Lower sugar maple brown sugar offers a protein boost with 8.57g per 100g, outperforming Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Lower sugar maple brown sugar or Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes?

It depends on your goals. Lower sugar maple brown sugar has 343 calories, while Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes has 20.7 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Lower sugar maple brown sugar vegan?

No, Lower sugar maple brown sugar is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Lower sugar maple brown sugar and Fire Roasted Diced Tomatoes?

There is a difference of 322 calories per 100g between the two products.

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