Head-to-Head Analysis

Silk Protein (Plant) vs Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct

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

Package of Silk Protein (Plant)

Silk Protein (Plant)

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct

Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
58.3 kcal
Energy
5 kcal
3.3g
Sugars
2g
2.1g
Fat
0g
5.4g
Protein
0g
0.3g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Silk Protein (Plant) and Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct 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.

Silk Protein (Plant) is the more energy-dense option here, packing 53 more calories per 100g than Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct. 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. Silk Protein (Plant) contains significantly more sugar (3.33g) compared to the milder Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct (2g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Silk Protein (Plant) offers a protein boost with 5.42g per 100g, outperforming Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Silk Protein (Plant) or Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct?

It depends on your goals. Silk Protein (Plant) has 58.3 calories, while Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct has 5 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Silk Protein (Plant) vegan?

No, Silk Protein (Plant) is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Silk Protein (Plant) and Wrigley's 5 gum Cobalt Mega Pack 35 ct?

There is a difference of 53 calories per 100g between the two products.

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