Newest Review: ... find their menu's show prices a little more than what you'd expect from high street stores. Burger King don't normally do special e... more
McDonalds's more expensive, more bland little brother
Member Name: shaneo632
Disadvantages: VERY expensive in comparison to McD's
Burger King is, in the eyes of most people, regarded as second fiddle to McDonald's; a lesser-known competitor that manages to create an always divisive argument over which is better-tasting and also which is actually better for you.
I don't frequent Burger King much, and that is for one simple reason: they are so bloody expensive! A full McDonald's meal will cost £3.99 AT MOST, whereas the same thing from Burger King will often set you back over a fiver, making it quite poor value by comparison. I'm surprised in many ways that BK have really survived so long given that they are so much more expensive without, in my eyes, really offering much more.
What do they offer? They have a range of burger meals, but to be honest it's nothing that McDonald's haven't done better, and their iconography and stamp is nowhere near as ingrained in the cultural consciousness as McDonald's, even though their Hamburglar design is quite cool. What I will praise them for, though, is the toys they give away with their meals: they are very detailed generally and quite often better than what McDonald's will give away.
If I ever go to Burger King, I normally by the Whopper, because it's the one thing that they have that McDonald's doesn't have, but even then it's not a lot different, it's more a name than anything, and this typifies very much what BK are: McDonald's lesser known, slightly uglier, and more expensive little brother. Debates will forever rage on about which chain's chips are better, and while I maintain that BK's burgers are a bit dryer and not as moist, I'm sure many will prefer BK because they're the "little chain that could" and aren't as representative of economic monopoly.
Summary: I frequent BK even less than I do McD's