Looks: The crackers don’t have as smooth a surface as the ones on the box, and their color is bit more varied. (If you look closely, you can see that I managed to snap a picture of the mythical “unseparated cracker” in the top of the photograph – the fault line is there, but it was never completely broken.) 4 out of 5

Taste: You’ll notice that the box claims that these taste “Better than Wheat Thins!” I’m a big fan of Wheat Thins, but I agree with the box. Wheatable are like a cross between a Wheat Thin and a Ritz cracker. Wheaty and slightly sweet like the Wheat Thin, but crispy, like the Ritz; I had to stop myself from absentmindedly eating the whole box. What’s the deal with their shape though? 5 out of 5

Looks: Except for having fewer flecks of what I presume is tomato and less texture, they’re identical to the crackers on the box. (I’m holding the one cracker up to show that the larger cracker on the box is just closer to the camera; the package doesn’t contain a large “lord of the crackers” cracker or anything.) 4.5 out of 5

Taste: It tastes like a generic cracker, with a little bit of tomato-y aftertaste. Nothing special at all, and the crackers I tried weren’t even very crisp, which I thought was the whole point of crackers. Since they weren’t offensive-tasting, they don’t score too low, but they were so forgettable that I would never have reason to buy them again. 2.5 out of 5

Looks: Somewhat oranger than depicted, and not quite as textured. 4 out of 5

Taste: Like a really salty Wheat Thin. I couldn’t eat more than a few at once due to the overwhelming amount of salt on them – almost inedible. 1.5 out of 5