Head-to-Head Analysis

Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet vs Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds

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

Top Pick
Package of Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet

Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds

Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
125 kcal
Energy
466.7 kcal
1.8g
Sugars
50g
3.1g
Fat
26.7g
19.6g
Protein
6.7g
1.2g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet and Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds 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.

For calorie-conscious consumers, Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet is the clear winner. With 342 fewer calories per 100g than its competitor, it allows for more volume while keeping your energy intake in check.

In terms of sugar control, Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet takes the lead with only 1.79g of sugar per 100g, whereas Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds contains 50g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet offers a protein boost with 19.6g per 100g, outperforming Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet or Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds?

Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet appears to be the healthier option generally, as it has less sugar and fewer calories.

Is Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet vegan?

No, Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Sweet & Smokey BBQ Pork Loin Filet and Candy Coated Dark Chocolate Covered Almonds?

There is a difference of 342 calories per 100g between the two products.

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