I admit it. I am a sucker for a chocolate muffin. While I usually go for Duncan Hines Triple Chocolate Chunk 100% Whole Grain Muffins, I recently decided to try Betty Crocker’s version. It is called Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix. That’s a mouthful!
Made with Hershey’s semi-sweet chocolate chips, Betty Crocker’s Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix certainly had a lot going for it going in. But the real question remained: Was it as good as the Duncan Hines Whole Grain version? The answer is no on several accounts.
First of all, Betty Crocker’s Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix is not made with whole grains. Secondly, it doesn’t have the same super rich dark chocolate taste. Thirdly, it is made with chocolate chips instead of chocolate chunks. That makes it harder to taste the extra chocolate surprise.
Of course, in truth, neither variety can remotely be considered a low calorie food. Betty Crocker’s Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix does; however, contain 30 more calories than its competitor, Duncan Hines. That is 200 calories versus 230 calories per muffin.
When it comes to fat, the two are about the same at 90 fat related calories. That equates to about 15% of the daily requirement of fat intake to Duncan Hines’s 9%. Neither product, thankfully, contains trans trans fat.
Betty Crocker’s Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix also contains 12% of the daily-recommended amount of cholesterol. That is 4% more than Duncan Hines’s 8%.
The sodium content of this product, on the other hand is 2% lower at 10%, versus 12%. The carbohydrate percentage is the same in both mixes at 11%.
On the flip side, Betty Crocker’s Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix contains 2 grams of protein, 3% of the daily recommended amount of potassium and 4% of the needed fiber. They also provide 8% of the needed iron, 6% of thiamin, 4% of the daily-recommended amount of folic acid and riboflavin and 2% of the needed niacin.
Ingredients include baking soda, chocolate liqueur, cocoa butter, corn syrup, enriched semi-sweet chocolate chips, milk fat, partially hydrogenated cottonseed and/or soybean oil, salt, sugar, wheat flour. It also contains artificial flavor, cellulose gum, dextrose, modified corn syrup, mono and diglycerides, monoesters of fatty acids, propylene glycol, sodium aluminum phosphate, sodium stearoyl lactilate, soy lecithin and xanthan gum. The wheat flour is enriched with folic acid, iron, mononitrate, niacin, riboflavin and thiamin.
The mix requires two eggs, Â¾ cup of water and Â¼ cup vegetable oil. The muffins are baked in muffin tins at 425 degrees Fahrenheit for about 15 to 20 minutes.
To make the bread instead of muffins, use 1 cup of dried cherries, along with Â¾ cup of water, Â¼ cup of vegetable oil and 2 eggs. Mix thoroughly and bake in a standard bread pan at 375 degrees Fahrenheit for about 45 to 55 minutes.
To reduce the fat content on either recipe, substitute fat-free egg product instead of real eggs and replace the vegetable oil with unsweetened applesauce.
While Betty Crocker’s Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix is good, it’s just not quite as good as its competitor. Here is my summary review:
Baking ease: 5 stars. These muffins do not stick and they bake perfectly within 20 minutes.
Taste: 4 stars. These muffins are good. I give them 8 points against Duncan Hine’s 10 points. They are not; however, as moist as Duncan Hines.
Packaging: 5 stars. Betty Crocker’s Double Chocolate Premium Muffin & Quick Bread Mix comes in a yellow and red box with brown and yellow banners. The Betty Crocker spoon logo is prominently displayed at the top of the box. A picture of the muffins pops off the yellow and light brown background. A brown banner highlights the product’s name in white lettering. A smaller yellow banner and the Hershey’s logo highlight the connection between Betty Crocker and Hershey’s with regard to this product. Another yellow banner in the left hand corner lets consumers know that the mix can also be used to make bread; not just muffins. All in all, the packaging is well done and colorful. It can; however, be confused on the store shelf for that of Duncan Hines. Whether that is intentional or not is unknown.
Freshness: 5 stars. We store the finished muffins inside of a “green” fresh rubber container. They keep fresh for a few days but not as fresh as Duncan Hines.
Dietary value: 4 stars. The muffins are high in calories, carbs and sugar but relatively low in fat, moderate in sodium and contain no cholesterol. On a positive note, they contain fiber, protein, potassium, folic acid, iron, niacin, riboflavin and thiamin.
Ease of purchase: 3 stars. I stumbled upon these at the commissary thinking they were Duncan Hines at first. I have not yet seen them on standard grocery shelves, but they are new. Eventually they will more widely distributed.
Price: 5 stars. They are about the same price as Duncan Hines.
Product purchase probability: 2 stars. I would only buy these if Duncan Hines weren’t available.
Retailer purchase probability: 5 stars. I’m glad the commissary carried them. If I did buy them again, it would be from there, where they are less expensive.
Final rating: 4.3 stars.
5 stars = outstanding
4 stars = good
3 stars = average
2 stars = below average
1 star = poor