![]() |
This bar falls into the category of Kit Kat copycats with a name that sounds kind of like Kit Kat, but not really. I believe I’ve seen a few of these in my life, and I actually find the names to be very entertaining. It’s as if they’re trying to make the name of the bar sound like “Kit Kat”, but they don’t really care if the words actually make sense. This bar also fall into the category of Kit Kat copycats that are very similar to Kit Kat bars, but also kind of different too. This makes me wonder if maybe the design for Kit Kat is so common that maybe I shouldn’t associate it with Kit Kat anymore. Maybe I should just call them wafer fingers or something.
The difference this bar has over a Kit Kat is the thickness of material between each finger. I’ve seen this before where the connecting chocolate (and wafer apparently) is much thicker than a Kit Kat bar. This is however the first time I’ve encountered a connection so thick that I couldn’t actually break the bar apart. In some ways that makes this a Kit Kat copycat bar that doesn’t actually work the same way a Kit Kat bar works. With the King Tat bar you’re forced to eat the bar as one single bar, as opposed to a series of fingers. As I noted before, the fact that there is not only chocolate connecting the bars, but also wafer, makes breaking it particularly difficult.
It should be noted that I often skip over fake Kit Kat bars lately because it’s really hard to write reviews for them without just saying they’re lesser Kit Kat bars. This one however fooled me. If you look at the package you might notice that the fingers never appear to be connected. You can also see that the illustration does not show that there are wafers inside each stick. The final odd thing is the singular hazelnut on the package, which is weird because if there was any hazelnut in this bar it was very weak. While the name might have suggested it was a Kit Kat copycat, nothing else on the package would suggest it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |