The sign read, "We love it as much as you do. It's why we made this collection that captures matcha's unique vibrancy and energy."

I was particularly fond of the mug on the far left, with the paint splatters, and the mug second from the right.

We were off to a strong start, but the good vibes didn't last long.

A grande iced matcha latte at my local Starbucks costs $6.25 for 16 fluid ounces.

I only needed to take one sip to know something did not taste right to me.

Matcha, a type of green tea, is not sweet — it's bitter. So I usually add a little bit of sweetener to it (most frequently a pump of vanilla).

Starbucks adds, by default, three pumps of classic syrup to a matcha latte, so if I added more syrup, it could be disgustingly sweet.

However, this drink was so bitter that I had to double-check that the syrup had been added. It had — I just couldn't handle it, I guess.

This drink looked thick and creamy, precisely what I would want, but it ended up being a bit more watery than I thought.

Ultimately, it felt like I was drinking bitter, watery green tea. The chain uses unsweetened powder, which I think threw me off.

Starbucks confirmed that in January 2025, it switched from sweetened matcha powder to an unsweetened one to give customers more customization options.

Once I shook it up and stopped drinking from the straw, the latte got better, but it still wasn't for me.

Of the three chains I visited, Starbucks easily had the most options to customize its drinks, and it has the most expansive matcha menu, with 16 different types, including Dubai chocolate, banana bread, and lavender cream. Clearly, the chain is responding to customer demand for its matcha.

In the future, I think I would add vanilla syrup or try another flavor combination to reach my preferred level of sweetness. But as it stands, I didn't love the basic option.

Onto the next!

A medium matcha latte from Dunkin' set me back $5.49, so it was slightly cheaper than Starbucks and came in a larger size at 24 fluid ounces.

However, it really just tasted like matcha-flavored milk to me.

Both Starbucks and Dunkin' use three scoops of matcha powder in their standard drinks, but while Starbucks uses syrup to sweeten it, Dunkin' uses cane sugar.

This didn't taste bad, but if I was really craving the earthy taste of matcha, I wouldn't go back to Dunkin'.

That said, I would recommend this to someone who has never had matcha before and is looking to ease into it. They'll be shopping for the ceremonial grade stuff in no time.

Dunkin' did not respond to a request for comment regarding its matcha recipe or use of sweeteners.

This cost $5.27 for 16 fluid ounces, placing it in the middle of the three in terms of cost per fluid ounce.

Tim Hortons uses a sweetened matcha powder, which I think made all the difference. They don't add any additional sweeteners, so this struck the perfect balance of being slightly sweet, not too milky, and still having that earthy flavor.

Tim Hortons did not respond to a request for comment regarding its matcha recipe.

Not too sweet, not too bitter, a reasonable price — what more could I ask for?

Sadly, there's only one Tim's in all of Manhattan (in addition to two in Brooklyn and four in Staten Island). The Midtown location isn't the most convenient from my apartment or office, so I don't think I'll be able to add it to the rotation.

I really enjoyed the Timbits I ordered with my drink, too.

Please expand, Tim Hortons! I'll become a dedicated Horton Head and drink matcha every day if one were closer.

With "extra-loaded" in the name, I was expecting to be impressed.

The thin-crust pie is topped with bell peppers, Italian sausage, red onion, pepperoni, and mushrooms.

When I removed this pizza from the box, though, it looked like it was only topped with cheese. Upon closer inspection, I saw a smattering of toppings buried beneath the shreds. I was curious to see how it'd cook.

This pizza cost me $5.49, and serves five.

The photo on the box didn't look anything like my final pizza.

Once cooked, the toppings were nearly invisible aside from a few peppers and pepperoni pieces sticking out on the edges.

The cheese got wonderfully golden, but the peppers and meat pieces below it didn't crisp up much. All in all, this pizza had a decent flavor, but not enough toppings.

This was still better than frozen pizzas I've tried from many other brands, but it was my least favorite of the group.

The Mama Cozzi's French-bread pepperoni pizza is made with mozzarella and topped with pepperoni.

I paid only $2.79 for a box with two pieces; each is one serving.

This felt more like a toasted, open-faced pepperoni sandwich than a pizza. The bread was crunchy, but I found myself missing a more typical crust.

Plus, this seemed to have far less cheese than any other pizzas I tried. I could see way too much of the sauce peeking through the layer of shredded mozzarella.

Still, I enjoyed eating this and thought the pepperoni (made with pork, beef, and chicken) tasted exceptionally good.

For what it's worth, I lived on the Mama Cozzi's original thin-crust pizzas throughout the pandemic. These cost a little more now than in 2021, but they're still a great value at $3.19 for a pie that serves three.

For this taste test, I tried the supreme variety, which comes with sausage, pepperoni, green peppers, and onion.

This pizza was pretty impressive as it seemed loaded with all of the aforementioned toppings. Each bite seemed to have pepperoni or sausage.

The cracker-like crust wasn't anything to write home about in terms of flavor, but it was the perfect crunchy conduit for the toppings.

Flatbread pizzas can be hit or miss. Sometimes their crusts get soggy or too crisp, but they can be delicious when done well.

This rectangular flatbread pizza from Mama Cozzi's that I tried is made with both sliced and diced pepperoni, plus fresh mozzarella.

It cost me $4.79 and comes with two servings.

I was pleasantly surprised by my very first bite. The crust was buttery and flaky in a light, airy, beautiful way.

The ratio of cheese to meat seemed well-balanced, and the different pepperoni cuts helped the toppings feel more evenly distributed.

The rectangular shape made the pizza fairly easy to eat, which I also liked. All in all, this pizza was delicious.

The most indulgent pizza of them all seemed to be the Mama Cozzi's four-cheese pizza with a rising crust described as "fluffy" and "full."

Toppings include Asiago, Parmesan, Romano, and mozzarella, and in terms of ounces, this pizza was the heaviest.

It cost me $4.19 and has six servings.

As essentially promised by the box, the crust was the softest and most pillowy of the pies on this list.

I tasted notes of each individual cheese atop a slightly sweet red sauce. Parmesan and Asiago added a nice variety of salty flavors to the pie.

Plus, I found it incredibly filling — after two slices, I was satisfied.

It was fantastic, even eaten cold and leftover, the next day. This would've been my favorite if not for one dark horse.

The Mama Cozzi's stone-baked veggie pizza with an Italian crust seemed loaded with red onion, spinach, grilled peppers, and grilled zucchini.

I wasn't super excited to try it since I really enjoy meat and was a bit turned off by how little mozzarella appeared to be on the pie based on the photo on the box.

I paid $3.99 for the pizza, which contains four servings.

I was skeptical at first, but this pizza blew me away.

There was so little sauce that I barely noticed it, but I didn't find I actually needed or wanted more. The pizza wasn't dry, and I liked that the vegetables on top were spread to the edge of the crust.

The crust tasted buttery — though not as buttery as the flatbread's — and was very flavorful with Italian herbs and a crunchy yet fluffy texture.

This pizza's toppings were the tastiest and most colorful. With so many textures and flavors, the slight lack of cheese didn't bother me after all.

All in all, this pizza was my top pick.

This story was originally published on June 3, 2025, and most recently updated on April 24, 2026.

Cost: $4.99 for 12 fluid ounces

Calories: 210 calories

Protein: 16 grams

Added sugar: 7 grams

The taste of the Remedy Organics Cacao Essentials Protein Shake was what I could best describe as healthy.

The date-sweetened drink is packed with plant-based ingredients, including adaptogens like ashwagandha and maca root powders as well as tapioca prebiotic powder.

But taste-wise, they weren't as sweet-treat-like as some of the other shakes. It tasted strongly of cacao, but it felt a little chalky, and seemed saltier than it did sweet.

While I liked the drink's ingredients, I really disliked the taste. If you're looking for a plant-based, adaptogen-full drink that will also help you reach protein goals, this could be an option for you — but don't go into it expecting a sweet chocolate milk type of drink.

Flavor rating: 1/10

Overall rating: 6/10

Cost: $3.99 for 14 fluid ounces

Calories: 170 calories

Protein: 25 grams

Added sugar: 0 grams

When I first poured the Muscle Milk Zero Sugar shake, I noticed just how dark and thick it was. Tasting it, I found that it was way too sweet for my taste. This, combined with the thick texture, made for a pretty interesting drinking experience — I had to wash down the shake with some water to follow up the sweet taste left in my mouth.

Although I couldn't finish drinking the small taste I'd poured myself, it also had the fewest calories and grams of sugar in the ranking, the highest fiber, and I felt like the protein payoff was great, which made the overly sweet taste feel more like a trade-off.

If you're trying to get half of your daily protein in as few calories as possible while also watching out for sugar content, this drink might be good to have on your radar … but you'll have to remind yourself of the nutrients in every sip.

Do it for the protein, bro.

Flavor rating: 3/10

Overall rating: 6/10

Cost: $4.99 for 12 fluid ounces

Calories: 190 calories

Protein: 18 grams

Added sugar: 4 grams

Compared to some of the other protein drinks, I found Koia's Cacao Bean protein shake to be very thin and light in color when I first poured it.

Its flavor, as the name would indicate, is very cacao-bean forward. To me, it tasted exactly like cacao nibs, which can lean more nutty and earthy than chocolate-y.

In a statement to Business Insider, Koia said the Cacao Bean protein shake is "crafted to highlight cacao's naturally bold, slightly bitter profile rather than masking it with excessive sweetness or artificial flavoring," resulting in a flavor that "may be less sweet than traditional protein shakes."

The almond-based, monk-fruit-sweetened drink, which isn't too sweet and packs in plant-based ingredients like rice, pea, and chickpea protein and a prebiotic blend, wasn't one of my favorites for taste, although it was fairly competitive with the other options in terms of nutrients.

Flavor rating: 4/10

Overall rating: 5/10

Cost: $2.00 for 11 fluid ounces

Calories: 350 calories

Protein: 12 grams

Added sugar: 39 grams

I found the flavor of the chocolate Sport Shake to be one of the most enjoyable in the ranking, and it reminded me a lot of plain chocolate milk — it was very, very sweet. I also liked that it didn't taste too much like dairy, something that bothered me with other drinks in the lineup.

However, the drink's sweet and tasty flavor was overshadowed by its ultra-high added sugar content of 39 grams, or more than 9 teaspoons.

While the drink has some fiber in it, coming in with 3 grams, and it was the cheapest of the ranking, I couldn't justify that much sugar. I will probably not reach for this again.

Flavor rating: 8/10

Overall rating: 1/10

Cost: $2.50 for 14 fluid ounces

Calories: 250 calories

Protein: 14 grams

Added sugar: 18 grams

I was shocked when I learned that Nesquik's classic chocolate milk could be considered a nutritional drink.

At 14 grams of protein, as advertised on the bottle, the drink has more grams of protein per serving than other drinks labeled as protein drinks.

Tasting it was just as nostalgic as expected. Compared to some of the other drinks, however, I noticed it had a stronger dairy taste and was very sweet, with a total of 18 grams of added sugar.

I also noticed that the bottle recommended a portion of half a bottle, probably due to the drink's high sugar content, which would also result in half the protein intake overall.

I probably wouldn't have reached for this in adulthood if not to compare it here, and I probably won't really reach for it again.

Flavor rating: 6/10

Overall rating: 4/10

Cost: $5.99 for 14 fluid ounces

Calories: 220 calories

Protein: 40 grams

Added sugar: 0 grams

Like its low-sugar version, the Muscle Milk Pro looked dark and thick. Taste-wise, the drink was sweeter than chocolate-y, and I didn't love the flavor.

Although the drink packs an impressive 40 grams of protein in 14 ounces and 220 calories, has the highest ratio of protein to fluid ounces, and also has the highest fiber content in the list, the taste was one of my least favorites, and I had to wash it down with some water after tasting, as it had such a lingering flavor on the tongue.

When considering the nutritional aspects of the drink, however, I felt like the taste was a solid trade-off for one of the most protein-efficient drinks in the ranking, having the second-highest amount of grams of protein in a single bottle.

But if you're strictly going for the ultra-high-protein option, the Fairlife Core Power Elite — which comes later in this ranking — might be a better bet for flavor.

Flavor rating: 4/10

Overall rating: 7/10

Cost: $4.49 for 12 fluid ounces

Calories: 200 calories

Protein: 32 grams

Added sugar: 0 grams

When I first poured the OWYN — which stands for Only What You Need — Pro Elite Protein Shake, it looked much thicker than some of the other drinks in the ranking.

It tasted vastly different from the others, too. The ingredients gave some clues as to why: The main ingredients — water, pea protein, pumpkin protein, and flaxseed oil — were completely different from the other shakes.

The plant-based, dairy-, soy-, and wheat-free drink, which contains 3 grams of prebiotics, uses monk fruit extract to sweeten its cocoa-heavy flavor, and also has a greens blend that includes spinach, kale, and broccoli.

I figured that the odd flavor I experienced was perhaps due to some of its most health-forward ingredients, like the greens blend.

In a statement to Business Insider, OWYN said that the exclusion of artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols in the formula "sometimes means a more natural, earthy taste profile," when compared to their regular shake, which uses a blend of organic cane sugar and monk fruit.

Ultimately, I wasn't a fan of the taste and probably wouldn't reach for this drink again, although nutrition-wise, it was a solid ultra-high-protein plant-based option.

Flavor rating: 5/10

Overall rating: 6/10

Cost: $5.99 for 14 fluid ounces

Calories: 230 calories

Protein: 42 grams

Added sugar: 0 grams

One of three protein shakes in Fairlife's line, the Core Power Elite shake was a bit thinner than many of the other drinks I tried.

It was less sweet than Fairlife's regular chocolate milk, which I didn't mind. However, it had a much stronger dairy taste — I don't love the taste of dairy milk, so this worked against the drink for me.

Still, its insane amount of protein — as much as a whole chicken breast — earned it extra points in my ranking.

This drink was something I didn't mind drinking, even if I wouldn't usually go for it. Even as a non-gym-bro, I would probably reach for this drink if I were trying to get well over half of my needed protein for the day in a single serving.

Flavor rating: 5/10

Overall rating: 8/10

Cost: $2.50 for 11 fluid ounces

Calories: 330 calories

Protein: 15 grams

Added sugar: 29 grams

When I poured the chocolate Nutrament, I noticed its consistency was among the runniest in the ranking.

The drink, the second-cheapest drink in the lineup, tasted just like chocolate milk, although it was still a bit too sweet for me.

I also noticed it had a long ingredients list with many unfamiliar terms, but on closer inspection, some seemed to be added vitamins and minerals. The drink also had the second-highest added sugar content at 29 grams.

The high sugar and comparatively low protein knocked this drink down a few points for me, and although I enjoyed it, I probably wouldn't reach for this.

Flavor Rating: 9/10

Overall Rating: 5/10

Cost: $3.29 for 14 fluid ounces

Calories: 250 calories

Protein: 23 grams

The second in Fairlife's line, its chocolate ultra-filtered milk, was another nostalgic offering.

It was very sweet, but if I were craving chocolate milk, this is definitely the option I would choose.

While it's not marketed as a protein drink, it contains 23 grams in a 14-ounce bottle and has the second-lowest cost per gram of protein.

Flavor rating: 7/10

Overall rating: 7/10

Cost: $18.99 for a six-pack of 8-ounce bottles (or $3.17 for 8 fluid ounces)

Calories: 360 calories

Protein: 14 grams

Added sugar: 18 grams

While some of the drinks in this lineup are aimed at the ultra-protein-efficient crowd and others are more directed at children, the Boost nutritional drink line is marketed toward adults with specific nutritional needs. The Boost Plus product, specifically, is aimed at adults hoping to gain or maintain weight.

Taste-wise, this was one of my favorites. The sweet and rich drink was very chocolatey, and it felt like a nice sweet treat.

With the product's purpose in mind, the drink's higher calories didn't bother me, and I was pleased to see its nutrition label flooded with vitamins and minerals.

Out of many of the options, this is one I could see myself reaching for solely based on its taste, even though I wish it had a higher protein content.

Flavor rating: 9/10

Overall rating: 7/10

Cost: $3.00 for 14 fluid ounces

Calories: 290 calories

Protein: 23 grams

Added sugar: 18 grams

When I poured this drink, I was surprised by how runny it was compared to some of the other options. I really enjoyed the taste, even if it wasn't exactly the same as the nostalgic chocolate-milk flavor of Nesquik's classic option.

In fact, I actually liked this one more, even before factoring in the added nutritional value. It was adequately sweet, not too dairy-tasting, and it didn't have the aftertaste that had put me off the classic option.

With 23 grams of protein, this drink could compete with some of its more nutrition-leaning counterparts. At $3 for a bottle, it was also one of the cheapest options with the highest protein content.

I could totally see myself reaching for this.

Flavor rating: 8/10

Overall rating: 8/10

Cost: $4.29 for 12 fluid ounces

Calories: 180 calories

Protein: 20 grams

Added sugar: 4 grams

Compared to the higher-protein drink on OWYN's line, the regular protein shake wasn't as dark or as thick when I poured it.

While the OWYN Pro Elite had a taste I didn't like, the OWYN Dark Chocolate Protein Shake had a simpler flavor that reminded me of chocolate milk.

It was very tasty and chocolatey, and I liked that it also had 3 grams of fiber.

Overall, this felt like a very solid option that I could see myself reaching for. It was also my favorite plant-based drink.

Flavor rating: 8/10

Overall rating: 10/10

Cost: $4.99 for 14 fluid ounces

Calories: 170 calories

Protein: 26 grams

Added sugar: 0 grams

While this drink didn't exactly feel like a dessert or chocolate milk since it leaned more chocolatey and cocoa-tasting than sweet — and it did have somewhat of a dairy taste — I still found it very enjoyable and a very nice pick for both taste and protein.

Tied with the Muscle Milk Zero Sugar for the lowest calories in the ranking, I found the Fairlife Core Power shake much more enjoyable and even winning by a gram in the protein category.

Overall, this drink had the best balance between flavor and nutrition, and I can see myself reaching for it whenever I need a quick post-workout pick-me-up or just want to get a significant portion of my daily protein on the go.

Flavor rating: 8/10

Overall rating: 10/10

I liked that Trader Joe's option didn't have the ubiquitous pool of milky whey that sometimes settles on top of yogurt when I open it. The yogurt seemed to have a nice, medium-thick consistency.

At $5.50, the 32-ounce tub of Greek yogurt was the least expensive of the four brands I tried.

Sadly, I thought this yogurt had an intensely tangy, almost sour flavor.

Because of its standout creaminess, though, I'd like to try the store's other varieties of flavored Greek yogurt next time.

At $6.70, this 32-ounce tub was the most expensive yogurt I tried. When I opened the container, the yogurt looked creamy and smooth.

The 365 Greek yogurt tasted fresh and was well-balanced — mildly sweet and not too tangy or tart.

I'd likely use this yogurt in one of my smoothies, as I don't feel it would alter the taste, but would add a nice boost of protein.

The $6 Kirkland Signature organic nonfat Greek yogurt came in a 48-ounce tub.

On a cost-per-ounce basis, it was the best value of the varieties I tried. The entire tub was cheaper than the 365 organic yogurt from Whole Foods — and contained 16 more ounces.

The Kirkland Signature yogurt was rich and full-bodied, with just enough tartness to give it some depth.

I appreciated that this yogurt, though less dense than the others, didn't have a puddle of whey at the top. It seemed like an ideal base for fruit, granola, or other add-ins.

The 32-ounce tub of organic Greek yogurt from Wegmans cost $6 — a pleasant surprise, as I thought it would be more expensive.

Some whey floated at the top of the yogurt, but only creamy goodness remained once I dumped it out.

This Greek yogurt was creamy and smooth with the slightest tang, making it a solid base for add-ins. I think its light consistency would also be ideal to use in recipes.

Notably, this yogurt had the most sugar (7 grams) of all four options I tried. My daughter also liked it the most, so I plan on packing it in a container with some toppings for her lunch.

I liked this yogurt so much that I'm permanently keeping it in my refrigerator. The next time we need Greek yogurt, I'll reach for this one from Wegmans.

This story was originally published on June 9, 2024, and most recently updated on March 24, 2026.