Head-to-Head Analysis

Ruby Couverture Almonds vs Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet

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

Package of Ruby Couverture Almonds

Ruby Couverture Almonds

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet

Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
581 kcal
Energy
100 kcal
32.3g
Sugars
11.7g
45.2g
Fat
1.3g
12.9g
Protein
4.2g
0.1g
Salt
0g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Ruby Couverture Almonds and Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet 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.

Ruby Couverture Almonds is the more energy-dense option here, packing 481 more calories per 100g than Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet. 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. Ruby Couverture Almonds contains significantly more sugar (32.3g) compared to the milder Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet (11.666666666667g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Ruby Couverture Almonds offers a protein boost with 12.9g per 100g, outperforming Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Ruby Couverture Almonds or Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet?

It depends on your goals. Ruby Couverture Almonds has 581 calories, while Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet has 100 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Ruby Couverture Almonds vegan?

No, Ruby Couverture Almonds is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Ruby Couverture Almonds and Superfood Blend - Blueberry/Beet?

There is a difference of 481 calories per 100g between the two products.

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