Comparison: Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup — Condensed vs Ready-to-Serve

 

One of my favourite soups is Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup… yes, the canned soup. But recently, I discovered that they came out with a version that doesn’t require adding water — the ready-to-serve version.

When I first saw it, my immediate reaction was: “Why is the ready-to-serve version three times the price of the condensed (add-water) version?” Naturally, my analytical brain was curious and itching to find out.

Price comparison:

Ready-to-Serve: $3.38 (≈ 66¢ per 100 ml)
Condensed: $1.47 (≈ 52¢ per 100 ml)

So, I bought both. And I discovered (spoiler alert): the larger, don’t-add-water version is so much better.

Just when I thought Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup couldn’t get any better… it can.

huge slices of mushrooms instead of the usual small chunks

The ready-to-serve version is creamier, contains larger slices of mushrooms, and tastes much richer overall. I didn’t think I’d find something that could top the condensed version (which is great in its own way), but it exists — and I’m genuinely glad I tried it.

Why the ready-to-serve version is better:

• Tastes richer
• Creamier texture
• No need to add water
• Bigger slices of mushroom

The only downside is that it’s slightly more expensive than the condensed version.

Conclusion:
If you’re someone who loves Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup and doesn’t mind paying a little extra for convenience and upgraded texture, the ready-to-serve version is absolutely worth it. It feels more indulgent, more satisfying, and closer to something you’d get freshly made rather than from a can. I’ll still keep the condensed version around, but when I want something comforting and effortless, the ready-to-serve has officially won me over.

Score: 9.5/10

Website: https://www.campbellsoup.ca/product/campbells-cream-of-mushroom/

Comparison: JBL Tune 215BT vs. 205BT, When “Newer” Isn’t Better

JBL TUNE215BT

They say newer versions are usually better—improved designs, enhanced performance, and upgraded features. But that wasn't the case with the JBL Tune 215BT earphones.

After years of daily use, my beloved JBL Tune 205BT finally gave out due to wear and tear. Naturally, I decided to try their newer sibling, the 215BT, hoping for an even better experience. Unfortunately, I was quickly disappointed.

JBL 205BT

The only real upside to the 215s? They connected slightly faster to my phone via Bluetooth. But from fit to sound quality—even down to the small details like the cable clip—the 205s were hands down the better earphones.

In fact, I disliked the 215s so much that I started hunting down another pair of the discontinued 205s within a week of using the 215s—and I was incredibly lucky and fortunate to actually find a pair!

Here’s a breakdown of why I believe the JBL Tune 205BTs outperform the JBL Tune 215BTs in almost every way. For simplicity, I’ll refer to them as the 205s and 215s throughout.

---

Ear Fit & Comfort

I have smaller, somewhat awkwardly shaped ears, so comfort is a top priority when it comes to earphones. The 205s had a perfectly contoured shape that fit snugly without causing discomfort, even after hours of wear. They were more “ear-shaped,” which helped them stay in place securely.

The 215s, on the other hand, were a pain—literally. The earbuds are rounder and bulkier, which made them difficult to fit and keep in my ears. They popped out constantly and caused discomfort almost immediately after putting them on.

Scores:
205s: 9/10
215s: 2/10

---

Sound Quality

One of my favorite things about the 205s was their sound. The bass was rich, the audio clear, and they made music incredibly enjoyable. Whether it was music, podcasts, or audiobooks, the sound quality was immersive and satisfying.

The 215s, however, felt like a downgrade. The audio sounded hollow—like it was coming from a tin can or from far away. Even with the volume turned all the way up or after tweaking the settings, the sound remained thin and flat. Listening to audiobooks became difficult, let alone enjoying music.

Scores:
205s: 9.8/10
215s: 1.0/10

---

Cable Clip Design

This small detail turned out to be a big frustration. The 205s had flat cables that clipped securely and easily, keeping the earphones balanced and comfortable.

In contrast, the 215s have rounder, thicker cables that don’t stay put. Even when I forced the wires into the clip, they would constantly slip out, making the whole setup feel cheap and inconvenient.

Scores:
205s: 10/10
215s: 0/10

---

Final Thoughts

The JBL Tune 215BT might be the newer model, but in this case, newer doesn't mean better. From fit and comfort to sound quality and cable design, the 205s win in every category that matters to me.

If you’re like me and prioritize comfort and great sound, I’d recommend hunting down a pair of JBL Tune 205BTs—even if it means buying them secondhand. Sometimes, the older version really is the better one.

Comparison: Oral B Satin floss vs Glide Advance

 

These two are from the same brand, Oral-B, but are completely different. 

It's funny how everyday topics can become unexpectedly interesting. Today, I find myself discussing something as mundane as dental floss. But something as simple as dental floss can make or break your day. I want to explore the similarities and differences between these two options, Satin and Glide. It's a conundrum many of us face when we stand in front of the dental care aisle, wondering which one to choose from the many options available. 

I leave it up to luck to choose the right one, they look similar and sometimes I choose the wrong floss. It can be incredibly frustrating. It's funny how we tend to hoard things, even dental floss! But after writing out this review, I have clarity and I will toss out the Satin floss. Sometimes, letting go of what isn't working and sticking with what does is the best approach. So, it is time to bid farewell to the Satin floss and avoid those pesky bad flossing experiences in the future.

My Experiences:

Pricing:

The Satin floss is priced at $5.50 for 50 meters, whereas The Glide floss is available at $6.29 for 40 meters. While Glide may come at a slightly higher cost, it's a case where you genuinely get what you pay for, and it's well worth splurging that extra 70 cents for a superior product that provides less floss.

similarities:

both are minty but the Glide is more minitier than the Satin. (that's all the similarities I can find)

the floss on the left is Satin, the one on the right is Glide

From the picture, you can already see that the Glide is much more solid and tougher than the Satin. The Satin is too thin and flat. 

Satin

Pro-ish:

• While it does an excellent job of thoroughly cleaning and dislodging hard-to-reach particles stuck between your gums and teeth gap, there's a notable downside. Every single time I use it, it seems to dig quite deep into my gums, leading to bleeding gums without fail. The cuts it creates in my gums can be rather painful and linger for a few days afterward. 
• It is disappointing... even when I try to floss as gently as I can.

Cons:

• It is plasticky, feels like a folded-up/rolled-up plastic bag, causes a weird friction between the floss and my teeth and forces me to floss harder.
• It is flat, so the sides feel sharp. On the note of being flat, the floss always ends up folding up (horizontally) making it weaker and narrower.
• The material used easily breaks, sometimes, it breaks in between my teeth, creating more things for me to floss out. >___<
• The floss is too flat so you need to use it a few times to get everything out.
• Barely minty

Glide

Pros:

• It does a perfect job flossing, I do enjoy using it as it fits nicely in between the teeth and does not hurt your gums.
• Does not hurt gums, it, like the name, glides smoothly and gently removes.
• it is solid and waxy and doesn't easily give way or break.
• the shape remains consistent/constant and the area never gives in and properly gets rid of the particles.
• very minty

Cons:

• Can be a little thinner than I would like it to be. Sometimes, it does not have enough strength to remove everything in one floss.
• It can be a bit waxy and leave your fingers with some wax substance.

Verdict:

I have tried to discuss my experiences in as much detail as possible and the clear winner is Glide Advance. Although it is slightly more expensive than the Satin floss, the pros outweigh the cons. 

If you want a good flossing experience, the Glide Advance is the much. better choice :).

Comparison: Japanese Instant Noodles vs International Instant Noodles Ramen

 

International version

The title of this post might be strange. This is what I meant: the comparison between the Japanese version of the same brand (e.g. Nissan) Noodles and the international version of the same instant noodles.

Japanese version

If you ever wondered whether they might be different, you are correct. They are quite different. In fact, if you blindfolded me and asked me to do a taste test, I would not be able to tell that both are from the same brand. 

International version 

ready to serve International version

I've always thought that the Nissan Instant noodles we know of were the standard until I moved to Tokyo and realized they are very different. There was a day I was craving that oiliness of Nissan noodles, however, when I went to the store and bought a packet that "looked" similar enough to be the Nissan Ramen I am familiar with, but to my surprise (and disappointment)... it wasn't. 

Japanese version: uncooked

Japanese version: ready to serve

Here are some differences I noticed. 

Differences between Nissan noodles:

	Japanese version	International version
Noodle type	baked, not fried, contains bits of dried ginger and other condiments	fried, a bit of an oiliness, plain
Noodle texture	thin, firm and has a heavier chewiness,	thick, slightly porous and has a light chewiness, also a bit oily
Taste (broth)	saltier, richer flavour and healthier tasting (similar to egg noodles), heavy on ginger taste (with noticeable ginger bits)	lighter brother, everything is "well balanced" and gives you a comfort food taste. Heavier on sesame
Noodle prep time	1.5 minutes (in boiling water)	3 minutes (in boiling water)
Calories	306 calories	450 calories

It has hard to choose which one I prefer because both are good and different (in a good way). The International version is more of a comfort food, while the Japanese version seems healthier and more preferred if I want a ramen meal (for dinner). 

Which do you prefer?

For those interested, here are more photos and info about each version of ramen. While reviewing the images, I realized the instructions have changed since I reviewed these noodles (on their old packaging)... so please ignore the differences in directions (between the review and the images... I'll make amendments in a bit.)

Nissin International Version:

highlights: 

made in Hong Kong

Made in Japan

Comparison: Korean Facial Mists: InnisFree vs I Dew Care

After writing up my review for I Dew Care's Thirst Things First Revitalizing Vitamin C Mist Mask, I thought it would be a good idea to compare it with Innisfree's Olive Real Oil Mist. 

	I Dew Care	Innisfree
Containers	Fatter, shorter	✓Slicker, thinner, taller, easy to grasp
Spray Quality	✓the spray works really well and the aim is on point. ✓the spray gives a satisfying amount of product depending on how long you press the dispenser ✓the spray also sprays vertically allowing produce to properly disperse over the face	the spray works well, but aiming needs a bit of a learning curve the spray only dispenses a set amount each time the spray only sprays in one small spot
Scent	very light lemon scent (barely there), doesn't leave any scent on the face	strong lemon, similar to essential oil, but disappears within a few seconds
Consistency	very lightweight feels lighter than water	thicker, closer to a serum
Effectiveness	leave skin with a plump and moist texture	hydrates skin
Price	$28 CAD	✓$16 CAD
Amount of Product	80ml	80ml

Both are very similar and does what it advertises. I was impressed with how I Dew Care instantly made my face feel so plump and moist. Innisfree's is also good as it hydrates the skin but the effects are not as long-lasting as I Dew Care's. 

Innisfree's is almost half the price of I Dew Care's for the same amount. 

Hope this comparison helps you decide on which product is suitable for your needs. 

Comparison: Kirkland's Almond Covered Vanilla Ice Cream Bars vs Haagen Dazs Vanilla Almond Chocolate Bars

 

I finally got my hands on Kirkland's almond chocolate and vanilla ice cream bars and loved it! Kirkland's version has been very popular because of the cheaper price tag. I went on a lot of community forums and they have insisted that these two are very similar. So I decided to test out Kirkland's version against Haagen Daz's (which I have loved for many many years) for you.

I was surprised as to how identical the taste was... but I noted some key differences. here's what they are:

	Haagan Daz's	Kirkland's
Almond count	a bit more than Kirkland's	______________________
Creaminess of Vanilla	___________________	Creamier and richer than Haagan Daz's, also tastes milkier
Chocolate	___________________	Chocolate is darker and richer than Haagan Daz's
Calories	290 (88 ml)	280 (91 ml)

Taste is subjective... so if having more almonds is what you prefer, then Haagan Daz's Vanilla Milk Chocolate Almond bars would be better for you.

If you prefer a creamier, milkier vanilla bar taste and like darker and richer chocolate, then Kirkland's would be your go-to. (I was extremely surprised how Kirkland's version has a lower calorie count! :O)

Price: (in CAD at Costco)

Haagan Daz's Vanilla Almond Chocolate Bars (contains 9 bars per box) $9.49

Kirkland's Chocolate Almond Covered Vanilla Ice Cream Bars (contains 18 bars per box) $9.99

edit (November 17, 2021): I checked at Costco today and it seems their prices were raised (possibly because of inflation)

updated prices (as of November 17, 2021):

Haagan Daz's Vanilla Almond Chocolate Bars (contains 9 bars per box) $14.49

Kirkland's Chocolate Almond Covered Vanilla Ice Cream Bars (contains 18 bars per box) $14.99

I'll let you decide, but for me (since the almond count doesn't really bother me), I think it is quite obvious that Kirkland's is the clear winner here :D

Let me know your thoughts :D

Comparison: Starbucks PSL vs. McDonalds PSL

Starbuck's

Yeah for the season of Pumpkin Spice Latte! This is probably one of the few things I look forward to for Autumn/Fall every year (I dread the cold).

Traditionally, I drank Starbuck's Pumpkin Spice Latte to mark the end of summer, and this year, I learned that McDonald's is offering their version of Pumpkin Spice Latte too! (I'm not sure whether they had offered it before... though).

 To make this comparison fair, I ordered them both as they are (no added sugar, no enhancements)

Starbuck's Pumpkin Spice Latte

Starbuck's Pumpkin Spice Latte

There is no doubt that Starbuck's is a Fall/Autumn staple, so here are some impressions I have drawn up in regards to comparison:

• has a strong bitter coffee aftertaste 
• slightly stronger nutmeg
• slightly thicker
• orange looking drink

I'm surprised these were probably the only differences my mouth felt and tastebuds felt.

McDonald's Pumpkin Spice Latte

McDonald's

Honestly... when I first had my first couple of sips, my brain was confused... they are both very similar in taste with a few exceptions. 

Pumpkin Spice Latte with whipped cream

notable differences:

• slightly sweeter
• no bitter aftertaste
• a bit runnier than Starbuck's
• looks like their other lattes

McDonald's PSL whipped cream mixed

I am quite impressed with McDonald's PSL, despite using more artificial ingredients, it tastes very similar to Starbucks... if you are looking for a substitute for Starbucks, then McDonald's would be a fair choice.

Comparison: Difference Between Hong Kong and Canadian/American McDonald's Sausage McMuffin

Hong Kong McDonald's Sausage McMuffin

Chinese name: 豬柳蛋漢堡

For those in North America, begin to envy us in Hong Kong! Did you know that McDonald's in Hong Kong serves their Sausage McMuffin as a regular menu item? This means we can order this anytime... not just around breakfast time! (*evil laughter)

In this review, I want to talk about the differences between the Sausage McMuffin you can order in Hong Kong vs the one in North America And... for those who haven't had a Sausage McMuffin ever (shock), I'll give a small review about it.

Initially, I was planning to write the review on the same post... but after realizing that there are more differences I decided to write a separate post.

I halfed a Sausage McMuffin, see how the ingredients are nicely arranged?

Similarities:

• tastes identical
• similar ingredients (read more in the differences)

Differences:

• patty tastes a bit different, there is a weird "tangy" taste in the HK version (and no, the meat didn't go bad... I experienced this in 3 mcDonald's at different times and they all tasted like that). I did find a way to get rid of the weird "tangy" taste, you just let the mcMuffin cool down
• muffin, I prefer HK version bread more, because it doesn't have that weird sour taste to it, the muffin wasn't grilled in the HK version, possibly baked.
• HK version's ingredients are properly placed (as shown in the image)
• The cheese in the HK version wasn't fully melted

So which do you prefer?

I guess it all depends... to be honest, I don't have a huge prefererence over one or the other because they are really similar. I didn't enjoy the tangyness of the HK patty... but at the same time, I didn't like the tangyness that the muffin had in the American/Canadian version either. I liked how organized the ingredients were in the HK version but I also liked the melted cheese in the American/Canadian version. At the end of the day, I think both are good.

score: 10/10
website: http://www.mcdonalds.com.hk/en/24-hours-mcdelivery.html

Comparing Browsers:Google Chrome Vs. Mozilla Firefox

image source: http://mashable.com/2009/09/21/web-browser-faceoff/

I was debating whether this should go in my personal blog or my reviews blog... in the end, I chose the reviews blog... so here it is:

I think they are both really great browsers, but lately, I have discovered that using Chrome seems to have more user-friendly advantages over Mozilla Firefox, here are the advantages I have observed:

Advantages of using Google Chrome:
- fast
- directly type search items in address bar to search in Google
- when zooming in and out, I know what is the percentage of the view I am viewing (e.g. zoom 110%, 150%, 80% of original view)
- incognito window (for private browsing, won't save history, cookies, etc)
- open image in new tab option (very useful)
- automatically asks to translate a page for you when it is in a different language other specified in your browser)
- Chrome's autofill is so convenient when it comes to filling long forms (while you need to click on each field in Firefox, Chrome allows you to autofill with one click)

Advantages of using Mozilla Firefox:
- plugin/extensions to view live CSS/html changes (Chrome has a similar feature, but Firefox's extensions have more options and easier to use)
- extremely stable
- lots of extensions and plugins (lots of customization options)


both are great, really (they are both the most used browsers) I use both of them, if a webpage did not work in one, I would use the other browser to view that web page. But in terms of usability and user experience, I would choose Google Chrome.