Head-to-Head Analysis

Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies vs Sweetened Condensed Milk

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

Package of Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies

Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Sweetened Condensed Milk

Sweetened Condensed Milk

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
1750 kcal
Energy
333 kcal
118g
Sugars
53.8g
88.8g
Fat
7.7g
14.8g
Protein
7.7g
0g
Salt
0.2g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies and Sweetened Condensed Milk 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.

Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies is the more energy-dense option here, packing 1417 more calories per 100g than Sweetened Condensed Milk. 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. Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies contains significantly more sugar (118g) compared to the milder Sweetened Condensed Milk (53.8g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Sweetened Condensed Milk is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies offers a protein boost with 14.8g per 100g, outperforming Sweetened Condensed Milk in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies or Sweetened Condensed Milk?

It depends on your goals. Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies has 1750 calories, while Sweetened Condensed Milk has 333 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies vegan?

No, Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Spooky Cat Shape Sugar Cookies and Sweetened Condensed Milk?

There is a difference of 1417 calories per 100g between the two products.

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