Head-to-Head Analysis

Slim Jim monster mild single vs Classic Vanilla marshmallows

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

Package of Slim Jim monster mild single

Slim Jim monster mild single

Not Vegan
VS
Top Pick
Package of Classic Vanilla marshmallows

Classic Vanilla marshmallows

Not Vegan
Nutritional Facts (per 100g)
473 kcal
Energy
93.8 kcal
3.6g
Sugars
0g
34.5g
Fat
0g
20g
Protein
6.3g
4g
Salt
0.5g

The Verdict: Which is Better?

When placing Slim Jim monster mild single and Classic Vanilla marshmallows 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.

Slim Jim monster mild single is the more energy-dense option here, packing 379 more calories per 100g than Classic Vanilla marshmallows. 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. Slim Jim monster mild single contains significantly more sugar (3.64g) compared to the milder Classic Vanilla marshmallows (0g). If you are monitoring your insulin levels or trying to cut down on sweets, Classic Vanilla marshmallows is undeniably the healthier pick.

Looking to build muscle? Slim Jim monster mild single offers a protein boost with 20g per 100g, outperforming Classic Vanilla marshmallows in this category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is healthier: Slim Jim monster mild single or Classic Vanilla marshmallows?

It depends on your goals. Slim Jim monster mild single has 473 calories, while Classic Vanilla marshmallows has 93.75 calories. Check the detailed table above for sugar and fat content.

Is Slim Jim monster mild single vegan?

No, Slim Jim monster mild single is not certified vegan.

What is the calorie difference between Slim Jim monster mild single and Classic Vanilla marshmallows?

There is a difference of 379 calories per 100g between the two products.

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