Head-to-Head Analysis

Milano; Double Dark Chocolate vs Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz

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

Package of Milano; Double Dark Chocolate

Milano; Double Dark Chocolate

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz

Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
500 kcal
Energy
467 kcal
32.1g
Sugars
13.3g
25g
Fat
16.7g
3.6g
Protein
6.7g
0.3g
Salt
2g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Milano; Double Dark Chocolate and Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz 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.

Milano; Double Dark Chocolate is the more energy-dense option here, packing 33 more calories per 100g than Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz. 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. Milano; Double Dark Chocolate contains significantly more sugar (32.1g) compared to the milder Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz (13.3g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz is undeniably the healthier pick.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Milano; Double Dark Chocolate or Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz?

It depends on your goals. Milano; Double Dark Chocolate has 500 calories, while Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz has 467 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Milano; Double Dark Chocolate vegan?

No, Milano; Double Dark Chocolate is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Milano; Double Dark Chocolate and Nabisco ritz crackers whole wheat 1x12.9 oz?

There is a difference of 33 calories per 100g between the two products.

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