Head-to-Head Analysis

Burnt Ends vs Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork

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

Package of Burnt Ends

Burnt Ends

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork

Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
321 kcal
Energy
0 kcal
6g
Sugars
0g
22.6g
Fat
0g
22.6g
Protein
0g
1.3g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Burnt Ends and Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork 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.

Burnt Ends is the more energy-dense option here, packing 321 more calories per 100g than Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork. 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. Burnt Ends contains significantly more sugar (5.95g) compared to the milder Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Burnt Ends offers a protein boost with 22.6g per 100g, outperforming Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Burnt Ends or Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork?

It depends on your goals. Burnt Ends has 321 calories, while Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork has 0 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Burnt Ends vegan?

No, Burnt Ends is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Burnt Ends and Classic Bun-Length Wieners with Chicken and Pork?

There is a difference of 321 calories per 100g between the two products.

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