Head-to-Head Analysis

Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted vs Salad cut hearts of palm

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

Package of Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted

Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Salad cut hearts of palm

Salad cut hearts of palm

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
588 kcal
Energy
15 kcal
5.9g
Sugars
0g
52.9g
Fat
0g
23.5g
Protein
2g
0.4g
Salt
0.7g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted and Salad cut hearts of palm 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.

Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted is the more energy-dense option here, packing 573 more calories per 100g than Salad cut hearts of palm. 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. Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted contains significantly more sugar (5.88g) compared to the milder Salad cut hearts of palm (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Salad cut hearts of palm is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted offers a protein boost with 23.5g per 100g, outperforming Salad cut hearts of palm in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted or Salad cut hearts of palm?

It depends on your goals. Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted has 588 calories, while Salad cut hearts of palm has 15 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted vegan?

No, Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Almonds On-the-Go Lightly Salted and Salad cut hearts of palm?

There is a difference of 573 calories per 100g between the two products.

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