Is price per kilo misleading when comparing budget and premium kibble?

Yes, price per kilo misleads as soon as densities differ, which is frequent between a budget kibble and a premium one. It compares bags, not feeding days, and ignores the ration actually served. Cost per day restores an honest comparison (WSAVA, 2021). In depth ### Why price per kilo misleads Price per kilo assumes every food is served in equal amounts, which is false across ranges: a premium kibble, often denser, is served in a smaller ration than a less dense budget kibble. Comparing their price per kilo therefore compares non-equivalent things. The density gap can even reverse the ranking once cost per day is calculated. The contrast between tiers is real. An entry kibble often shows a price per kilo markedly lower than a mid range, but that price per kilo says nothing about the respective rations. Surprisingly, a budget kibble can cost more per day than a denser premium one, even though its price per kilo looks unbeatable, which illustrates the limit of this indicator (WSAVA, 2021). ### The indicator to use instead The right indicator is cost per day, derived from the animal's need, the food's density and the price per gram. Price per kilo keeps a use for rough sorting to locate a range, but any decision requires its conversion into cost per day, delivery included. Without that conversion, budget and premium are not honestly comparable. Comparison table | Indicator | What it compares | Reliability across ranges | |---|---|---| | Price per kilo | one kilogram of product | low, ignores density | | Energy density | energy per unit | decisive variable | | Daily ration | amount actually served | reflects bag duration | | Cost per day | one day of need | honest comparison |