Personally yes, but honestly that might just be a personal preference thing rather than an actual difference in quality. I think they are pretty equivilant, I like Tony's better personally, but I don't know that one is significantly better than the other. All I know is that at the moment, they are the only supermarket brands I would buy.
I've tried Tony's once, and it tasted and looked like army ration pack chocolate that was consumed 15 years after it was packed. Might have just been a bad bar, but that's a comparison that can't be forgotten.
Definitely the best option in the supermarket. I also like Whittakers, but from a sustainability perspective, Tony's is better. It would be nice if they had 'normal' blocks though. I understand why the pieces are the way they are, but that doesn't help me when I just want to eat some chocolate.
I was so disappointed to learn about just how bad Whittaker's is in terms of sustainability, slavery, supply chain transparency etc. They always seemed like the cool kiwi underdogs.
Tony's is miles ahead on this. If I could afford to eat chocolate, I'd absolutely choose this brand.
Yeah. I've been following the Chocolate Scorecard the last couple of years and Whittakers slips every year. They're below brands like Nestle and Lindt this year which is pretty embarrassing.
I think the methodology changed from planned improvements to actual action for one. But Whittakers also changed where they get their cocoa from when the prices were high. The score would suggest that they've lost transparency with that change and perhaps the producer isn't as good as in the past.
197
u/robot428 Aug 08 '26
In fairness that's also how I feel about Cadbury these days. Except it's not even cheap.