Ranking 9 Store-Bought Sugar-Free Cookies from Worst to Best

There are many reasons why people choose to limit their sugar consumption — weight loss, better nutrition, higher energy levels, or various other factors. Others may have a medical condition that requires them to eliminate or reduce their sugar intake. Either way, it doesn’t keep people from missing and craving a little sweet treat every now and again.

Luckily there are quite a few sugar alternatives, like sucralose, monk fruit, and stevia, to choose from. I wanted to see how well these ingredients work in sugar-free cookies, and whether or not they offer the same taste and satisfaction as regular cookies. 

I do have to say, sugar-free cookies are not the easiest thing to find. There are only a few brands that offer multiple options. But I grabbed the ones I could find and put them to the test to see how they compared to the sugar-based ones I’ve tried. Then, I ranked them based on how close they came to the “real thing” and whether or not they were worth buying. 

It was nice to see a sugar-free option in the bakery, as finding options from big brands was difficult enough on its own. And these Walmart cookies made quite a nice first impression — they were large, golden-brown, and had huge chocolate chips. But the looks were the only thing these cookies had going for them. 

When I pulled one from the container, I noticed it had a soft texture, which was exciting. But that excitement soon fell flat, as I was met with a taste that I could have done without. I’ve heard people describe bland foods as tasting like cardboard before, but hadn’t ever experienced it myself — until I took a bite of this cookie. It tasted like pulpy paper and sweetness, which resulted in a strange tang on my tongue. 

While it’s nice to have a bakery-fresh option, this is one to pass on. Although I didn’t really want to take another bite of this cookie, I knew I had to be fair and give it another shot. But that second bite just affirmed what I already knew. 

These cookies take me back many, many years. They remind me of the wafer cookies that were popular when I was a kid in the ’70s and ’80s. And just like back then, I’m not a huge fan of them.

The wafer cookies are comparable to a small sliver of an ice cream cone. They should have a soft, melt-in-the-mouth texture. However, the wafer didn’t completely melt in my mouth and instead left a slimy residue that just sat on my tongue.

The chocolate between the thin layers did hint at cocoa, but it had a strange flavor that I found unpleasant. I think this flavor may be from the stevia. I’m generally not a big fan of stevia, and all-in-all found these cookies’ flavor to be a turn-off.

These cookies have a lovely appearance — including a nice, piped effect and a golden, buttery color. They were also delicately crumbly in texture, just as you’d expect from a shortbread. However, the taste was not there. They actually didn’t taste like much of anything at all — which is at least better than tasting bad.

Even sadder, there is a disclaimer on the back of the package that says “excess consumption may cause a laxative effect in sensitive persons.” While this may be shocking to some, those who are not new to sugar-free drinks and sugar-free candies may already know to look for this warning. It’s likely tied to the addition of ingredients like maltitol and sorbitol — two things I try to avoid eating. These polyols are used in quite a few sugar-free products and medications and can cause gastrointestinal distress. And since these cookies are tasteless, I don’t think they’re quite worth the gamble.

I got the impression from the packaging that this cookie was akin to Little Debbie’s oatmeal creme pies. I was very excited, even though the package ended up being much smaller than I expected.

When I opened the petite package, I was immediately put off by the color of the cream filling. It was light brown instead of a nice shade of white. When I tried to move the top sandwich cookie across what I thought would be a soft and fluffy filling, it didn’t budge. Instead, it stuck to the glue-like, thick filling.

When I got around to finally taking the first bite, I was pleasantly surprised by the dense, yet slightly soft oatmeal cookies. There was definitely some sweetness, but I couldn’t exactly pinpoint what the taste and texture of the center was supposed to resemble. I was also surprised by the snap of coconut. It was incredibly obvious that it was there, even though the particular flavor was not. It was all rather strange, to say the least.

While the sandwich wasn’t totally unpleasant, I’ve tasted similar in Clif and Luna bars — both of which are a lot more affordable than this cookie. These Sinless Snacks cost several times more than these other bars. It’s too pricey for such a small treat, especially one that falls flat. 

I figured these wafer cookies were going to rank similarly to Bauducco’s chocolate wafers, but I was pleasantly surprised that they didn’t. While the wafer portion was the same — meaning it didn’t melt in my mouth – the sweetness of the stevia wasn’t as harsh or as much of a turn-off.

There was a nice vanilla flavor to these cookies. It was rich and strong enough to overpower any flavor from the stevia. In fact, it was so pleasant that it made the slight sogginess of the wafer a bit more palatable — though not palatable enough to justify reaching for it again. But I do see how people may be drawn to these.

Those who liked the wafer cookies of generations past might very well enjoy this zero-sugar option. If your diet changes but your sweet cravings stay the same, they may even hit the spot for you. They just don’t particularly do it for me. 

I found that the taste of Murray’s sugar-free shortbread to be reminiscent of animal crackers. However, their tiny, thin, and almost delicate texture was nowhere near animal cracker territory. I laughed when I first saw “enough to share” scrolled across the top of the small package. But upon seeing the number of cookies inside, I can concur that the quantity is indeed a sharable portion — even if it is a small portion.

While the tiny cookies don’t remind me of shortbread, they are still nice-tasting little cookies. However, they are sweetened with maltitol and sorbitol, and eating too many may result in an upset stomach.

That being said, if you don’t plan on having many and can’t have sugar, a couple of these would probably satisfy you. They are buttery, sweet, and would make a nice complement to a cup of tea. Just be cautious of how many you consume in one sitting.

Once again, Murray offers “enough to share” with its chocolate chip cookies. And once again, it’s probably because they are very small and three of them count as one serving. However, putting that aside, these chocolate chip cookies taste very good.

The cookies themselves were crisp, sweet, and have just a small hint of saltiness that I enjoyed. The chips were full of rich cocoa flavor and were not too sugary. I definitely think these would satisfy a sweet tooth craving. Like a traditional chocolate chip cookie, they would be very good with a glass of cold milk.

Even though these cookies are just a couple of bites, the bites are enjoyable. However, they are sweetened with sorbitol and maltitol. And as we have already discussed, it is best to consume these sugar substitutes in small quantities. So, the tiny cookies and small serving size might be warranted. 

While the original Voortman shortbread cookie didn’t have much flavor, the fudge-striped shortbread version did. The latter’s shortbread base was more in alignment with traditional shortbread; it was crispy and buttery. It also made a wonderful foundation for the rich fudge, which was generously applied to both sides of the cookie. 

The fudge stripes were thick and lovely, and there was also a dense, chocolate-dipped bottom on the cookies. It was both texturally pleasing to bite into and tasted great, as it gave the crispy shortbread a luscious chew.

These were also very nice-looking cookies; they were large and had a decadent appearance. However, the packaging isn’t as nice to look at — especially because it had the same laxative warning. Each serving is one large cookie, making this brand more worth the gamble than the lower-ranked cookies on this list. 

It’s easy to see, just by looking at these sandwich cookies, what they are trying to emulate in sugar-free form. And they actually do quite a good job of it. The chocolate cookies are crispy with just a bit of chew. They’re also full of rich cocoa flavor and are the perfect companion to the creamy center.

While the filling isn’t as thick as other sandwich cookies, it was still incredibly pleasant, soft, sweet, and creamy. It offers just the right amount of sweetness and texture to balance the chocolate in the cookie. These come as close to classic Oreos as anyone could want. And since they’re sweetened with monk fruit and stevia, there’s no GI-upset disclaimer needed.

I was also impressed that these are gluten-free and contain 9 grams of fiber per serving. It seems like Highkey is hitting the right notes all-around with this option. Although the price might seem a bit steep, considering their delicious taste, nutritional profile, and the fact that they meet some unique dietary needs, I think they’re worth buying. 

I’ve had each of these cookies in their normal, sugar-containing form, and I wanted to see whether the sugar-free versions of these cookies delivered the same experience. The worst cookies on this list didn’t fool my palate at all, and some even had upsetting tastes and mouthfeels. The top cookies on this list are similar to their sugar-containing counterparts and were enjoyable overall.

Just because someone has specific dietary needs doesn’t mean they should have to give up on sweet treats. Sugar-free cookies shouldn’t be unpleasant, or worse, seem like a punishment — which some of these cookies did! If you really want to be satisfied, I would recommend sticking to the cookies at the top of the list.