Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips vs Wildebrands Sea Salt & Vinegar
Compare protein, calories, price, and overall value for Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips and Wildebrands Sea Salt & Vinegar before you buy.
Wilde Chips
Protein
10g
Calories
130
Price
$27.99
Protein per $1
0.4g
Pros
- Lower calorie load: 130 calories vs 160.
- Better value on protein per dollar: 0.4g per $1.
- Lower shelf price: $27.99 vs $99.00.
Cons
- Weaker review score: 4.6 vs 5.0.
Wildebrands
Protein
10g
Calories
160
Price
$99.00
Protein per $1
0.1g
Pros
- Stronger shopper rating: 5.0 vs 4.6.
Cons
- Higher calorie count: 160 vs 130.
- Higher price: $99.00 vs $27.99.
| Metric | Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips | Wildebrands Sea Salt & Vinegar |
|---|---|---|
| Protein | 10g | 10g |
| Calories | 130Best | 160 |
| Carbs | 9gBest | — |
| Fat | 5gBest | — |
| Price | $27.99Best | $99.00 |
| Protein per $1 | 0.4gBest | 0.1g |
Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips is the stronger overall pick in this matchup.
Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips wins here because it offers a lighter calorie hit (130 vs 160), better protein-per-dollar value (0.4g/$ vs 0.1g/$).
Choose Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips if you care more about lower calorie load: 130 calories vs 160.
Choose Wildebrands Sea Salt & Vinegar if you care more about stronger shopper rating: 5.0 vs 4.6.
Frequently Asked Questions
Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips and Wildebrands Sea Salt & Vinegar both deliver 10g of protein per serving.
Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips is the lighter option at 130 calories, compared with 160 calories for the alternative.
Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips delivers better protein-per-dollar value at about 0.4g per $1.
Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips is the stronger overall pick in this matchup. Wilde Chips Chicken & Himalayan Pink Salt Protein Chips wins here because it offers a lighter calorie hit (130 vs 160), better protein-per-dollar value (0.4g/$ vs 0.1g/$). Because they are in the same category, this is a direct apples-to-apples comparison.