Head-to-Head Analysis

Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple vs Better Sour

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

Package of Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple

Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Better Sour

Better Sour

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
607 kcal
Energy
118 kcal
17.9g
Sugars
5.9g
53.6g
Fat
0g
10.7g
Protein
0g
0.5g
Salt
0.3g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple and Better Sour 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.

Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple is the more energy-dense option here, packing 489 more calories per 100g than Better Sour. 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. Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple contains significantly more sugar (17.9g) compared to the milder Better Sour (5.88g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Better Sour is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple offers a protein boost with 10.7g per 100g, outperforming Better Sour in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple or Better Sour?

It depends on your goals. Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple has 607 calories, while Better Sour has 118 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple vegan?

No, Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Kettle Cooked Walnuts With A Touch Of Maple and Better Sour?

There is a difference of 489 calories per 100g between the two products.

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