Head-to-Head Analysis

Monster Soft-baked Cookies vs The Original Peanut Affy Tapple

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

Package of Monster Soft-baked Cookies

Monster Soft-baked Cookies

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of The Original Peanut Affy Tapple

The Original Peanut Affy Tapple

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
500 kcal
Energy
202 kcal
42.9g
Sugars
20.2g
21.4g
Fat
7.9g
7.1g
Protein
4.4g
0.8g
Salt
0.1g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Monster Soft-baked Cookies and The Original Peanut Affy Tapple 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.

Monster Soft-baked Cookies is the more energy-dense option here, packing 298 more calories per 100g than The Original Peanut Affy Tapple. 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. Monster Soft-baked Cookies contains significantly more sugar (42.9g) compared to the milder The Original Peanut Affy Tapple (20.2g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, The Original Peanut Affy Tapple is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Monster Soft-baked Cookies offers a protein boost with 7.14g per 100g, outperforming The Original Peanut Affy Tapple in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Monster Soft-baked Cookies or The Original Peanut Affy Tapple?

It depends on your goals. Monster Soft-baked Cookies has 500 calories, while The Original Peanut Affy Tapple has 202 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Monster Soft-baked Cookies vegan?

No, Monster Soft-baked Cookies is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Monster Soft-baked Cookies and The Original Peanut Affy Tapple?

There is a difference of 298 calories per 100g between the two products.

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