As usually, FastFoodReviewed.com is in the thick of it with our own dollar double burger throw down. Let’s see how these two titans of beef stack up.

Wrapped double cheeseburger McDonalds and Burger King

Appearance/Presentation

McDouble vs Burger King Double Cheeseburger

Both burgers were a little smashed and didn’t look as good as they do in their ads, but hell, they never look as good as they do in the ads. Burger King’s sesame seed bun was definitely a nice touch, and overall BK’s double just looked like a higher quality burger. +1 Burger King

Taste

BK’s Double Cheeseburger had its signature, smokey flame broiled taste, a little bit like a burger pulled off the backyard grill, just not quite. McDonald’s tasted just like the hundreds of other McDonald’s burgers I’ve eaten, which is to say it was good in that comforting McDonald’s sort of way. I didn’t even notice the lack of the second slice of cheese. This one really comes down to personal preference, but I’m giving the edge to BK’s double. It just tastes more like a real cheeseburger, and not fast food cheeseburger. +1 Burger King

Nutrition

McDouble:
Here are the facts from McDonald’s McDouble is listed in their nutritional information page.
390 calories
19 grams of fat
8 grams of saturated fat
1 gram of the dreaded trans fat
920 mg of sodium

Burger King’s Double Cheeseburger:
From Burger King’s Menu and Nutrition facts page.
510 calories
29 grams of fat
14 grams of saturated fat
1.5 grams of trans fat
1020 mg of sodium

Yikes, that brings my dinner of both burgers to 900 calories. Good thing I went to the gym.

Not surprisingly, Burger King’s Double Cheeseburger is definitely worse for you. That thing is quite the little calorie, fat and sodium bomb. Don’t get me wrong, the McDouble is not much better, but with only a small sacrifice in taste, the McDouble is the better option nutritionally. (You’re best option is to avoid both) +1 McDonald’s

Value

Both burgers are only $1, so which one gives you the most burger goodness for your buck?

BK’s double cheeseburger definitely had more heft to it, and that’s not surprising considering it has 120 more calories. The BK double also has an additional slice of cheese, something that McDonald’s removed from their $1 Menu double offering last year.

To give some of you fast food novices a history lesson, about a year ago McDonald’s replaced their Double Cheeseburger on the dollar menu with the McDouble, the same burger, but with a single slice of cheese. They did this in an effort to keep costs down, as some franchises were actually losing money on the Double Cheeseburger. According the Chicago Tribune McDonalds saves 6 cents a sale by not including the extra slice of cheese. You can read more here.

I suspect that Burger King is selling their Double Cheeseburgers at a loss, but with declining sales, this appears to be an effort to increase customer traffic. As I ordered my lonely Double Cheeseburger, the drive through attendant tried to push drinks and sides on me in an effort to increase profit. I’m not sure if I agree with Burger King’s strategy, and don’t see how this is a sustainable business plan.

The Soap Box: Are $1 double cheeseburgers really a good thing? Both options are a ton of calories for $1, and while I’d like to say that’s cool, it again leads me to the question of the high cost of cheap food. It would be a much better thing for America and our waist lines if we could get something comparably healthy for a $1. Can you image a nutritious 500 calorie salad or sandwich for a dollar? Now that would be a good value.

Both Burgers are an exceptional value at only $1. However, Burger King offers more value, but what cost to America and to their own business? I’m calling this one a draw.

There you have it readers, Burger King’s Double Cheeseburger edges out McDonald’s McDouble 2-1-1. And remember, you keep reading and we’ll keep eating so you don’t have to.

While just about everyone, especially your typical suburbanite, knows, Starbucks offers an assortment of sweet treats to go along with their overwhelming selection of coffee drinks. After all, a toffee bar is the perfect accompaniment to a venti non-fat soy skinny macchiato with two shots. And most are aware that McDonalds has a limited selection of deserts, like the McFlurry, and the oh so delicious apple pies. But few seem to remember McDonalds’ little case of cookies.

How did they stack up? Take a look.

Value:

Starbucks offered us one large cookie for $1.59, while McDonalds came in with 3 small cookies for $1. And with McDonalds we were not just limited to chocolate chip. They also offer an oatmeal raisin cookie. +1 McDonald’s

Nutrition:

McDonalds rocks in at a 160 calories per chocolate chip cookie and 150 calories in the oatmeal raison cookie. Not too bad…if you only eat one. Problem is, there’s three of them. Unfortunately, Starbucks does not list nutritional information about their cookies. Or at least, I couldn’t find anything. They do claim to make everything from all natural ingredients, and my suspicion is that the Starbucks cookie will be under 480 calories found in the 3 McDonalds cookies. But, just like when a team fails to take the field, I’m going to give the edge to McDonald’s. At least they are not hiding anything. +1 McDonalds

Taste:

The Starbucks’ cookie was OK, it had a hint of toffee flavor, but overall tasted like a store-bought cookie. It could not compete with the McDonalds’ cookies. They tasted like fresh, right out of the oven cookies. They were still warm, and satiated the cookie desire perfectly. Granted, it could have been a timing issue, McDonald’s were fresh, Starbucks was not. And the best part about McDonalds? The little milk chugs. +1 McDonalds

There you have it. McDonalds’ cookies defeat Starbucks in a landslide in our mini-showdown.