Rusks are an undisputed pillar of the Italian breakfast: crunchy, practical, easy to store and incredibly versatile. Regardless of whether you prefer them plain, with a veil of jam or honey or enriched with spreadable creams, it is very likely that you also have them at home.
Yet, in front of the supermarket shelves, choosing can become difficult. The offer is really wide, ranging from the classic golden ones to the wholemeal ones, from the cereal variants or enriched with seeds to the versions without added sugar, with reduced salt content, gluten-free or even covered in chocolate for those looking for a more delicious snack. But how to orient yourself in this jungle of proposals?
To help consumers, Altroconsumo carried out a very complete test, analyzing over 100 products of various types. The goal? Understanding what’s really inside the rusks that end up on our tables every morning, going beyond the promises of the packaging and the marketing strategies.
From large brands to branded products from supermarkets and discount stores, the test offers a detailed snapshot of the varieties available, comparing ingredients, nutritional values, presence of additives and degree of industrial processing.
We have already talked about the ranking of wholemeal rusks, today we focus on the results of the classics (47 products in total).
The ranking of classic rusks
Here is the complete ranking of classic rusks, from best to worst. Only 6 references reach the “very good” rating, while the majority are “good” or “acceptable”:
How the test was conducted
Altroconsumo examined over 100 rusks of different types, including classic and wholemeal. The evaluation focused mainly on the nutritional values and composition of the ingredients, through a score ranging from 0 to 100.
The evaluation criteria used are:
The products were selected from 10 supermarket and discount chains, with the survey carried out in July 2025. The final score places the rusks in five bands: Very good (80-100 points), Good (60-79), Acceptable (40-59), Poor (20-39) and Very poor (0-19).
