Head-to-Head Analysis

Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles vs Hi-chew

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

Top Pick
Package of Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles

Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles

Not Vegan
VS
Package of Hi-chew

Hi-chew

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
291 kcal
Energy
419.4 kcal
16.4g
Sugars
61.3g
10.9g
Fat
9.7g
3.6g
Protein
0g
1.1g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles and Hi-chew 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, Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles is the clear winner. With 128 fewer calories per 100g than its competitor, it allows for more volume while keeping your energy intake in check.

In terms of sugar control, Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles takes the lead with only 16.4g of sugar per 100g, whereas Hi-chew contains 61.290322580645g. Lower sugar content is often linked to better metabolic health.

Looking to build muscle? Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles offers a protein boost with 3.64g per 100g, outperforming Hi-chew in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles or Hi-chew?

Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles appears to be the healthier option generally, as it has less sugar and fewer calories.

Is Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles vegan?

No, Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Thick & Fluffy Belgian Style Cinnamon Brown Sugar Waffles and Hi-chew?

There is a difference of 128 calories per 100g between the two products.

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