Head-to-Head Analysis

Maple Slow Roast Almonds vs Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go

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

Package of Maple Slow Roast Almonds

Maple Slow Roast Almonds

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go

Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
536 kcal
Energy
67 kcal
21.4g
Sugars
13.3g
39.3g
Fat
0g
17.9g
Protein
0g
0.1g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Maple Slow Roast Almonds and Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go 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 Slow Roast Almonds is the more energy-dense option here, packing 469 more calories per 100g than Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go. 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 Slow Roast Almonds contains significantly more sugar (21.4g) compared to the milder Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go (13.33g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Maple Slow Roast Almonds offers a protein boost with 17.9g per 100g, outperforming Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Maple Slow Roast Almonds or Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go?

It depends on your goals. Maple Slow Roast Almonds has 536 calories, while Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go has 67 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Maple Slow Roast Almonds vegan?

No, Maple Slow Roast Almonds is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Maple Slow Roast Almonds and Apple Strawberry Fruit On The Go?

There is a difference of 469 calories per 100g between the two products.

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