Head-to-Head Analysis

Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips vs Organic Original Water Crackers

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

Package of Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips

Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Organic Original Water Crackers

Organic Original Water Crackers

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
429 kcal
Energy
467 kcal
17.9g
Sugars
0g
25g
Fat
10g
3.6g
Protein
6.7g
0.1g
Salt
0.8g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips and Organic Original Water Crackers 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, Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips is the clear winner. With 38 fewer calories per 100g than its competitor, it allows for more volume while keeping your energy intake in check.

However, watch out for the sugar content. Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips contains significantly more sugar (17.9g) compared to the milder Organic Original Water Crackers (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Organic Original Water Crackers is undeniably the healthier pick.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips or Organic Original Water Crackers?

It depends on your goals. Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips has 429 calories, while Organic Original Water Crackers has 467 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips vegan?

No, Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Sweets & Beets No Salt Added Vegetable Chips and Organic Original Water Crackers?

There is a difference of 38 calories per 100g between the two products.

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