1) Packaging: As usual, the Tastykake is packaged in a snug plastic wrapper. The clear “viewing window” in the middle clearly shows the three Krimpets inside. The top-left part of the wrapper is blue and features the Tastykake logo. But whereas most Tastykakes’ bottom-right portions are blue, the Jelly Krimpets’ package is an attractive shade of cerise, perhaps in recognition of the jelly filling. In this cerise area are the words “JELLY KRIMPETS,” below which, in a smaller font, is written, “Filled Sponge Cakes.” The Pop-Tarts’ plastic wrapper has a medium blue background with a large picture of two Pop-Tarts in the middle, broken open to show off their strawberry filling. The red Kellogg’s logo appears in the top-right. “pop-tarts” is written in a large (but lower case) typeface layered over the pictured tarts, with an adorable circle substituting for the hyphen. Below this, in different fonts, the package proclaims “toaster pastries” and “Frosted Strawberry.” A picture of a strawberry with a hazy white border is to the left of this, containing the phrase “Made with Real Fruit,” and more strawberries are in the bottom right corner. In the top-right corner is a yellow oval informing consumers that the Pop-Tarts are a “good source of 7 vitamins and minerals.” The bottom-left corner says “2 TOASTER PASTRIES.” This round definitely goes to the Krimpets. The unique cerise packaging is subtle, but it effectively stands out from other Tastykake products on the store shelf. The Pop-Tarts suffer from the same sort of info- and design- overload that plagued last week’s contender, the NuGo bar.

2) Price: The Krimpets sell for $1.39; the Pop-Tarts cost only 99 cents. While some might argue that there are three Krimpets and only two Pop-Tarts, the Krimpets are a total of 85 grams, outweighed by the Pop-Tarts at 104 grams. The Pop-Tarts take this round.

3) Appearance: The Pop-Tarts look exactly like the way they are pictured on the wrapper: A tan-colored pastry with a layer of white frosting containing engrained multicolored sprinkles, much like a Funfetti cupcake. The strawberry filling inside looks moist and jam-like. The Krimpets’ golden sponge cake and traditional wavy silhouettes are quite appetizing. You can see the holes on the top where the jelly filling is injected, and the jelly is oozing out ever-so-slightly: This is a very good sign. When broken open, it becomes apparent that the jelly saturates a large portion of the inside of each Krimpet. The Krimpets sweep this round on the strength of their oozing jelly.

4) Taste: The Krimpets are quite sweet due to their filling. The sponge cake is light and fluffy without being dry, and it is smart enough to stand back and let the jelly take center stage. The Pop-Tarts have the advantage of being able to be served either toasted or non-toasted. For this challenge, we ate it non-toasted with the rationale that when on the road or at the office, it can be hard to find a toaster, as portable toasters aren’t slated to be invented until the 21st century. The Pop-Tarts’ thin pasty has a slight crunch but comes across as rather dry and plain; it fulfills a role similar to the Krimpets’ sponge cake: A canvas against which the filling can shine. Their thin size makes them less satisfying to bite into than the Krimpets. The icing adds some additional crunch to the texture. The Pop-Tarts are good, but the Krimpets just have that je ne sais quoi that makes them more rewarding to eat.

5) Nutrition: The Pop-Tarts rank higher in fat (10 grams) and saturated fat (3.5 grams) than the Tastykake (6 grams / 2 grams). Both products are high in sugar, but the Pop-Tarts have no cholesterol compared to the Krimpets’ 75 milligrams (24% of your RDA). The yellow oval on the Pop-Tarts’ package was right: They have been fortified to contain 20% of your RDA of vitamin A, Iron, thiamin, riboflavin, folic acid, niacin, and vitamin B6. The claims of “real fruit” were somewhat misleading though: The nutrition area of the wrapper contains the disclaimer, “filling made with equal to 10% fruit.” Thanks to the vitamin fortification, the Pop-Tarts might be a somewhat better choice if you are going to be using them as a meal substitute, but otherwise, the products seem roughly equal. This round’s a draw.

Victory: Tastykake. Krimpets are one of Tastykake’s signature products, and it’s little wonder why: They are simple but delicious. The Pop-Tarts are good, but their thin size and bland pastry are just not in the same league as the Krimpets’ sponge cake. The Krimpets’ jelly oozing out of the top of each cake seals the deal, and Tastykake takes home the victory today.

1) Packaging: The Tastykake SnakBar comes in a blue plastic wrapper that does a good job of expanding the familiar look of Tastykake packaging to the nutrition bar arena. It does this by the use of a more mature-looking sans serif font outlined in silver. Below that is a goldenrod-colored bar proclaiming, “10g Protein 190 Calories.” At the bottom is a brown area with additional description of the product: “Soft-Baked Iced Outmeal Chocolate Peanut Butter Bar. Naturally & Artificially Flavored.” The text on the package is surrounded by pictures of peanuts on the left and the SnakBar on the right. The NuGo bar comes in a yellow wrapper, a hue known in the ‘70s as harvest gold. “NuGo” is scrawled across the middle in a forward-thrusting font, below which it explains the name: “Nutrition To Go.” Additional info, sometimes curiously worded/punctuated, appears in various places on the package: “Awesome Good & Healthy!” “Peanut Butter Chocolate.” “Made delicious with REAL Milk Chocolate!” At the far left is a brown area showing dropping chocolate, atop which are yellow circles with more info: “11g Protein.” “LOW FAT.” “100% NATURAL.” Similar to the SnakBar, a pic of the NuGo is on the right. This round definitely goes to the Tastykake. The NuGo’s overload of information isn’t well organized or worded, and the harvest gold color on the packaging looks unappetizing compared to the Tastykake.

2) Price: The NuGo goes for $1.39, whereas the identically-sized (50 gram)Tastykake sells for $1.99. NuGo takes this round.

3) Appearance: The NuGo hews closer to the picture on the packaging: A thin layer of chocolate at the bottom topped with a thick layer of crispy rice and soy adorned with some drizzled chocolate stripes. On the packaging, the Tastykake looks kind of like a pressed-together granola bar, but the real bar is paler looking, not looking very “baked.” Embedded inside the bar are bits of peanut butter, and the top has chocolate icing. The Tastykake doesn’t look bad, but compared to the pic on the packaging, it’s a bit of a let-down, handing this round over to NuGo.

4) Taste: The Tastykake really comes on strong on the taste department. While it doesn’t taste much like baked outmeal, it does taste a lot like cookie dough. Everybody loves cookie dough! The peanut butter bits add a nice touch. The NuGo is OK, but the crunch never lets you forget that you’re eating something that’s supposed to be healthy, and it’s not as filling as the dense SnakBar. The unexpectedly-delicious Tastykake takes this round.

5) Nutrition: Both bars are roughly comparable in the nutrition department, being good sources of protein. The Tastykake is notably higher in saturated fat (5 grams versus 1.5 grams), and the NuGo is higher in sugars (13 grams versus 7 grams), though the Tastykake also has 5 grams of “sugar alcohols.” This round is a draw.

Victory: Tastykake. The Tastykake was so unexpected in its doughy deliciousness, and it has a much more coherent design aesthetic to its packaging. The NuGo put up a good fight and really is not a bad bar at all, but in the end, Tastykake’s successful entry into the nutrition bar market proved dominant.

1) Packaging: Sporting a similar motif to the Tastykake Brownie and the Tastykake Chocolate Cupcakes, the Coconut Junior is wrapped in the familiar light blue/dark blue plastic with see-through mid-section. The Tastykake logo is in the upper-left, and the words “COCONUT JUNIOR” and “Yellow Layer Cake” appear in the bottom-right. The MoonPie comes in a clear, square plastic wrapper. The primary decoration is a circular white moon in the center, the bottom of which is taken up by an anthropomorphic yellow crescent moon in profile. The word (words?) MoonPie is written across the white part of the moon in a blue font outlined in yellow. Below that, a yellow banner proclaims, “Banana Flavor.” At the very top of the package it says “Double Decker” outlined in red. The perimeter is clear so you can see the MoonPie inside and verify that it actually is a double decker. These packages are similar in concept: Basic and old-school, but effectively catch the customer’s attention. This round is a draw.

2) Price: The Coconut Junior retails for $1.39, but the MoonPie was purchased at the bargain-basement price of 59 cents. The MoonPie takes this round decisively.

3) Appearance: The Coconut Junior is a rectangular yellow cake topped off with white icing and a generous amount of shredded coconut. There is also an additional layer of icing in the middle. The MoonPie is covered in a thin layer of banana flavored glaze the shade of orange-yellow, not at all like the color of a banana. Inside are three dense layers of what the MoonPie website claims are graham cookies. They taste like graham crackers, but have the appearance of a crumbly white cake. Separating the grahams are two layers of marshmallow. Both the MoonPie and the Coconut Junior look appealing, but the Tastykake takes this round because the MoonPie’s color is too artificial-looking.

4) Taste: The Tastykake is perfectly moist and light, much like a Krimpet. The coconut adds a nice texture to the icing; the only real downside is that it’s a bit sticky. The glazed MoonPie doesn’t have that problem, as its marshmallow is safely on the inside. The graham cookies are moist, and the whole thing is dense and gooey-chewey, the total opposite of the Coconut Junior. This round is too close to call: They’re both winners in the taste department.

5) Nutrition: The Tastykake weighs in at 94 grams versus the MoonPie’s 78 grams. Unfortunately for the Tastykake, it contains 28% of your recommended daily intake of fat at 44% of saturated fat. The MoonPie only has 11% of your daily fat and 27% of your saturated fat. Plus, the MoonPie has no cholesterol and the Tastykake has 20% of your daily recommendation. MoonPie takes this round hands-down.

Victory: MoonPie. The Mouth(full) from the South, MoonPie, is the winner today. While both snacks are deliciously satisfying, the Tastykake is comparatively unhealthy and expensive, leaving the anthropomorphic moon to wax victoriously on the MoonPie package, smiling contentedly.

BTW: Snack food competitions are becoming a big deal! SnackBracket.com is doing a bracket system to determine which is their favorite snack cake, and they have Tastykakes in the running! Catch their videos here.

1) Packaging: The Tastykake follows its modus operanti by sticking with a tight plastic wrapper around three cupcakes, with a cardboard panel underneath for added stability. The Tastykake logo looms large on the left side of the package. A swath of blue takes up the top of the packaging, a lighter shade of blue is on the bottom, and in the middle, separated from the blue by cheerful yellow stripes, is the clear area where the cupcakes are visible. On the right side are the words “CREAM FILLED CHOCOLATE CUPCAKES” in white (outlined in dark blue), with “Buttercream Iced” in a smaller typeface below. The Entenmann’s packaging is larger, with an opaque plastic wrapper around the cupcakes, which are protected by cardboard on the bottom and sides. The wrapper features a picture of two cupcakes in the middle; one is cut open to display the cream filling chamber inside, which looks extremely appetizing. The background features waves of dark blue, light blue, and white, all of which have a metallic sheen to them. The Entenmann’s logo is small in the upper left corner, followed by a yellow banner with a red “New!” on it. The largest word is below those, but above the picture of the cupcakes: “Enten-mini’s.” At the very bottom are the words “CHOCOLATE CRÈME CUPCAKES.” A poorly placed bar code is at the far left. This round was a close one. The judges were eager to give the nod to the Tastykake because of the Entenmann’s’ over-packaging and overly-prominent bar code, but the silvery blues and whites sure are lovely to behold. And the Tastykake was slightly squished. Therefore, this round goes to Entenmann’s.

2) Price: The Tastykake can be yours for $1.39. The Entenmann’s will cost you an additional ten cents…and you’ll only get two cupcakes to the Tastykake’s three. This round has to go to Tastykake.

3) Appearance: The Tastykake cupcakes’ white icing is offset by a chocolate stripe running down the center of each one. The chocolate cake is crumbly-looking and medium brown; on the inside, the filling is a brighter white than the top icing. The Enten-mini’s are topped by a harder-looking chocolate icing, with a contrasting white stripe in a baroque loop pattern. The chocolate icing is shimmery, as if there has been glitter added to it, which looks nice but becomes less appetizing the longer you think about it. Hopefully it’s caused by granulated sugar and not real glitter. The cake itself is ever so slightly darker than the Tastykake, as well as moister-looking. The filling chamber appears as depicted on the packaging. Until we get a definitive answer on the glitter situation, Tastykake will reign victorious in this round.

4) Taste: The Tastykake’s icing has a good consistency and flavor: Not too sweet, but not too rich either. The cake is moist but not very dense, with just a hint of chocolate flavor. The cream filling is sufficiently thick, although slightly gummy. The Entenmann’s icing is hard (as its appearance suggested), and the cake has a similar taste to the Tastykake, but more dense. The filling is fluffier than the Tastykake’s. Both cupcakes could stand to have a more chocolaty flavor, but either would be a solid choice in the sugary snack department. We’re going to give this round to the Tastykake, which has an intangible factor that just makes it a bit more satisfying.

5) Nutrition: Fortunately, both brands consider the entire package to be one serving size, because we all know that no one stops after one cupcake. The Tastykake, which has an extra cupcake, is 20 grams larger, and its nutrition suffers proportionately. Otherwise, both are fairly similar, although the Entenmann’s has five times more cholesterol (50 milligrams versus 10 milligrams), handing this round to Tastykake.

Victory: Tastykake. This was a close one. The Entenmann’s are attractively packaged, look good, and taste good too; the Tastykake is all of the above, plus a better value. Also, WTF is up with marketing these under the “Enten-mini’s” moniker? They’re the same size as a regular cupcake. The judges love mini-sized things and hate to be disappointed when something labeled as “mini” turns out to be full-sized. Much like the last Tastykake-Entenmann’s face-off, this one was a nail-biter. The next time these rivals meet, will the tide turn in Entenmann’s favor? We’ll have to wait and see.

1) Packaging: The Tastykake uses a fitted plastic wrapper with clear portions allowing potential consumers to see the cookie through the packaging, a strategy that has worked successfully in the past. The see-through parts are at the top and bottom of the bar; in the middle, the Tastykake logo arches above the words “Cookie Bars” in a thick, rounded white typeface against a dull striped red background, with a cursive “Soft” hovering above. At the bottom, “Chocolate Chip” appears in a wide tan rectangle. Eeking out from the corners are splashes of milk. The Mrs. Fields sports the traditional cursive Mrs. Fields logo against a deep red background. The bottom two-thirds of the package are taken up by a picture of the cookie, with “milk CHOCOLATE CHIP” appearing in a brown rectangle at the very bottom. In the lower right-hand corner is a proclamation that the cookie has 0 grams of trans fat. Hoorah! This round goes to Mrs. Fields, primarily because the see-through packaging of the Tastykake shows the cookie, which looks rather dry, particularly the chips. The delicious-looking picture of the Mrs. Fields cookie does not even need to be enlarged to show texture!

2) Price: The Tastykake is priced at 65 cents. Due to a lost receipt, the true cost of the Mrs. Fields is in doubt, but is believed to be 99 cents; regardless, it is more expensive than the Tastykake. This round goes to Tastykake.

3) Appearance: As mentioned earlier, the Tastykake has a rather dry look to it. The Mrs. Fields looks almost exactly like it does on the picture, except the chocolate chips do not look quite as melty. Also, the Tastykake wrapper says “Cookie Bars.” There is only one bar inside! Now perhaps the packaging simply means to bring attention to the fact that Tastykake offers a whole series of cookie bar flavors, not only chocolate chip. The point is moot, however, as Mrs. Fields takes this round decisively.

4) Taste: The Mrs. Fields cookie has a very rich taste with a distinct note of caramel. The texture is soft on the inside and slightly doughy, but firm on the outside. The chips are sufficiently chocolaty. Very satisfying overall. The Tastykake is also soft, but a bit too dry. The chips are sweet but not necessarily chocolaty, and the cookie part itself is nearly flavorless. Mrs. Fields nearly lands a knockout in this round.

5) Nutrition: Each cookie weighs in at about 2 ounces, making for an even comparison. The Mrs. Fields contains 15 grams of fat and 7 grams of saturated fat. The Tastykake has a svelte 11 grams of fat and 3 grams of saturated fat. Though the packaging doesn’t advertise it as a selling point as does the Mrs. Fields wrapper, the Tastykake also contains 0 grams of trans fat. Tastykake takes this round.

Victory: Mrs. Fields. Though the rounds were split 3-2 in favor of Mrs. Fields, that score doesn’t adequately capture how much better the Mrs. Fields cookie truly is. It is downright delicious, the kind of dessert that one could try to pass off as a homemade cookie and probably succeed. This first-ever Tastykake defeat comes as a shock, but fear not: It will be back next week ready to take on a new opponent.

Read more Tastykake Face-Off here.

Welcome to the second installment of Tastykake Face-Off, where Philadelphia’s hometown hero snack product goes up against the competition in a fight for top snack bragging rights. The winner will be carefully selected via analysis of several key criteria discussed below. Today it’s the battle of the brownies, as Hershey’s takes on the venerable Tastykake Brownie. Let’s see how this matchup of Pennsylvania heavyweights goes down…

• Packaging: The Tastykake brownie comes snugly packed in a simple plastic wrapper. The Tastykake logo appears like a banner in the upper left-hand corner. Across the midsection is a clear band allowing shoppers to see the actual brownie inside. In the lower right-hand corner is a yellow section with the words “Fudge Nut Brownie” written in a fun-looking font. The Hershey’s brownie comes in a larger plastic wrapper in which the brownie loosely sits. Or rather, hangs. The Hershey’s packaging is designed with a hole in the top so that the brownie can hang from a bar, ensuring maximum visibility. Very clever, Hershey’s. The artwork on the package has what looks to be a Hershey’s chocolate bar at the top, the word “Brownie” in a sophisticated font below, and then an artist’s rendition of the actual brownie and some dancing chocolate chips against a swirly brown, tan, and yellow background. At the very bottom are the descriptions, “with Hershey’s Chocolate Chips” and “Topped with a Drizzle of Chocolate Icing.” The judges are going to give this round to the Tastykake. Their rationale: Brownies are a fun food for kids. The Hershey’s packaging is aesthetically pleasing, but it’s just too “adult.” The Tastykake keeps it simple and lets the brownie do the talking. Tastykake takes an early lead in this face-off.

• Price: The Tastykake seems reasonably priced at $1.39; that is, until you compare it to the bargain basement 99 cent price of the Hershey’s. When you’re reduced to rifling through your car ashtray for change to pay for your brownie fix, that 40 cents can make all the difference.

• Appearance: Thanks to the Tastykake’s viewing window in the wrapper, you mostly know what you’re getting: A thin layer of fudge with some embedded walnuts. You can’t see what’s below the top layer without tearing into the packaging, but it’s no surprise that a medium brown, moist, slightly crumbly brownie lurks beneath. The Hershey’s is a greater gamble, but it doesn’t stray far from the drawing on the cover (except for the dancing chocolate chips). The ribbon of icing looks precise, but the actual brownie looks dark and ultra-dense, giving the impression of dryness, sort of like a Clif Bar. Brownies aren’t supposed to be comparable to health food! Advantage: Tastykake.

• Taste: Despite the appearance of the Hershey’s brownie, its taste is quite good, almost like a truffle (the chocolate kind, not the mushroom kind). Yes, it’s quite dense, but it has a note of true cocoa. The icing has a strange, slightly gritty texture when being chewed though, almost like toothpaste. The Tastykake is firm, well balanced, and slightly sweeter than the Hershey’s. The walnuts provide a nice crunch, and the icing is smooth. The Hershey’s put up a decent fight, but we’re ruling in favor of the Tastykake on taste.

• Nutrition: The Hershey’s (3 ounces) is slightly más grande than the Tastykake (2.75 ounces), but beware: The nutrition information on the back of the Hershey’s says that the brownie is actually two servings. Sure, the Hershey’s is rich and dense, but making two servings out of it is just unrealistic. When recalculated as a single serving, we find that the Hershey’s exceeds the Tastykake in fat and saturated fat, but not in sugar. A whole Hershey’s brownie has 36% of your RDA of saturated fat, whereas the Tastykake has only 26%. In short, neither of these brownies is a health food, but as an occasional treat, they are about even. This final round is a draw.

Victory: Tastykake. The Hershey’s isn’t really a bad brownie, and if you have no other options available, there are worse ways to spend your money. Maybe because the Hershey’s brownie is a relatively new product, it needs more time to be perfected. Or maybe Hershey’s should just stick to what it does best and just make candy bars. Candy bars are great, but for a perfectly balanced, time-tested brownie, go for the Tastykake. You won’t regret it.

Previously: Tastykake Face-Off: When Life Gives You Lemons, Make Lemon Pies

Welcome to the inaugural installment of Tastykake Face-Off, where Philadelphia’s hometown hero snack product goes up against the competition in a fight for top snack bragging rights. The winner will be carefully selected via analysis of several key criteria discussed below. Today it’s the battle of the lemon pies, as Entenmann’s takes on Tastykake. Let’s see if it’s a TKO…

Victory: Tastykake. The Entenmann’s lemon pie puts up a great fight, but ultimately, the Tastykake knows how to hit all the sweet spots without overstaying its welcome, giving it the victory. But if you’re jonesing for a lemon pie fix and are somewhere outside Tastykake’s distribution radius (for shame!), don’t hesitate to reach for an Entenmann’s. Either way, this is one product battle where the consumer can’t lose.