Satisfries “Fairly Similar” To Regular BK Fries, But That’s “Not Necessarily A Good Thing”

Not so satisfrying after all?

Not so satisfrying after all?

While we have our share of shenanigans over here at Consumerist HQ, our benevolent benefactors at Consumer Reports get the fun task of eating french fries and calling it work. They’ve already bent their minds and mouths to the task of tasting and reviewing Burger King’s new lower-calorie Satisfries (and we’re kind of bummed we weren’t there for it). How did they do?

Well, the Satisfries didn’t blow anyone’s hair back but it’s not like they were total spud duds, writes Consumer Reports’ Empress of Food Testing, Maxine Siegal.

Members of the CR foods team headed to two different Burger Kings to see how the Satisfries stack up against regular BK fries. And it sounds like the whole experience was kind of “meh.”

The consensus was that the Satisfries’ flavor is fairly similar to Burger King’s regular fries. (That’s not necessarily a good thing, since the regular fries are relatively low in flavor.) We found that Satisfries have a slightly tough coating that yields to an interior that’s like a soft mashed potato, if not a bit drier.

Not only were the fries on the wrong end of potato heaven, but the testers threw in an additional burn on Burger King:

“We also confirmed that McDonald’s fries still taste better, delivering a more intense potato flavor and a crispier texture.”

Overall, sure, get some Satisfries if you want to save on calories. But the title of Best Fries is likely still held by CR favorite, Wendy’s.

Are Burger King Satisfries a tasty lower-fat, lower-calorie option? [Consumer Reports]