Head-to-Head Analysis

Pot Of Gold vs SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries

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

Package of Pot Of Gold

Pot Of Gold

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries

SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
467 kcal
Energy
135.7 kcal
60g
Sugars
0g
23.3g
Fat
0g
3.3g
Protein
0g
0.4g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Pot Of Gold and SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries 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.

Pot Of Gold is the more energy-dense option here, packing 331 more calories per 100g than SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries. 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. Pot Of Gold contains significantly more sugar (60g) compared to the milder SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Pot Of Gold offers a protein boost with 3.33g per 100g, outperforming SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Pot Of Gold or SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries?

It depends on your goals. Pot Of Gold has 467 calories, while SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries has 135.714285714286 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Pot Of Gold vegan?

No, Pot Of Gold is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Pot Of Gold and SCANDIC Original Sugar Free Mints Wild Berries?

There is a difference of 331 calories per 100g between the two products.

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