Head-to-Head Analysis

Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal vs Ahold half & half

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

Package of Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal

Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Ahold half & half

Ahold half & half

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
372.1 kcal
Energy
133.3 kcal
30.2g
Sugars
3.3g
4.7g
Fat
11.7g
9.3g
Protein
3.3g
1.5g
Salt
0.2g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal and Ahold half & half 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.

Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal is the more energy-dense option here, packing 239 more calories per 100g than Ahold half & half. 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. Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal contains significantly more sugar (30.23g) compared to the milder Ahold half & half (3.3333333333333g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Ahold half & half is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal offers a protein boost with 9.3g per 100g, outperforming Ahold half & half in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal or Ahold half & half?

It depends on your goals. Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal has 372.09 calories, while Ahold half & half has 133.33333333333 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal vegan?

No, Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal and Ahold half & half?

There is a difference of 239 calories per 100g between the two products.

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