Can You Tell The Difference Between Starbucks’ And McDonald’s Pumpkin Spice Lattes?

By Charlotte Graham

Starbucks’ Pumpkin Spice Latte is more than just a calling card for basics. It’s also a seriously delicious drink in its own right. The coffee chain brought it back early this year, just for us. But how well do people really know the drink that defines fall in all of it’s pumpkin-y, spicy, over-caffeinated, overpriced essence? We decided to find out, by comparing Starbucks’ Pumpkin Spice Latte to its copy-cat and weird second cousin, the McDonald’s Pumpkin Spice Latte. Sure, there’s a few dollars of difference, but can anyone really tell the change in quality? Is there a change in quality at all? Should everyone abandon the smugly basic Starbucks in favor of reliable, cheap, potentially toxic McDonald’s? We answer these questions and more. We brought the Pumpkin Spice Latte Challenge to Washington Square Park in search of answers.

First we tried approaching random people in the street with Dixie cups full of mysterious steaming orangey-brown liquid. Not many people were interested in stopping, which was to be expected. It was rainy and cold, and drinking mysterious liquid from a stranger is usually ill-advised. Of the four people who stopped and talked, none could tell the difference between the McDonald’s PSL and a Starbucks PSL. None could taste any big distinction between the two drinks, though when pushed to guess, two of the four could correctly identify which drink was which. One, a man who looked to be in his early fifties, noted that “they both taste like shit.” Other than that helpful piece of input, there was no great insight given to the great Starbucks-McDonald’s debate.

This could be because the biggest difference between the two Pumpkin Spice drinks has less to do with taste, and more to do with presentation. The Starbucks edition is actually a “latte.” The Starbucks drink was presented with steamed milk and whipped cream, with a delicious drizzle on top. The McDonald’s drink was presented in a cup. Though the drinks taste similar, the McDonald’s version really took liberties with the whole “latte” concept — there was no steam or foam. The whole point of a latte is that it’s supposed to be a drink made of coffee and steamed milk. The world can maybe live without the whipped cream or drizzle, but a latte without the steamed milk is more like a very hot pumpkin-flavored liquid. Still good, but not a true latte.

We took out the whipped cream and the drizzle to make the taste test as fair as possible, but it was still pretty difficult to discern one from the other. The NYU students fared a bit better. When trying the McDonald’s option, Tisch sophomore Zuri Marley noted that it was “way too sweet” and asked if there was even pumpkin in it, maintaining that Starbucks’ PSL is more pumpkin-y, more spicy, and way frothier. She could easily tell the difference.

Steinhardt sophomore Morgan Collins thought both drinks were overrated as they “don’t taste like they have caffeine, and they both taste nasty.” Though not a PSL fan, Collins could also correctly identify the original drink. It’s possible that NYU students drink more Starbucks than McDonald’s.

Comparing the two drinks by logistics alone, a McDonald’s PSL seems like the right choice. The small is $2.99 and only 200 calories, whereas the Starbucks tall (AKA “small”) is $4.50 and contains 300 calories. But the McCafe just doesn’t taste as good — according to Starbucks fans, anyway — and it’s not the full latte experience. So rest assured, Starbucks fans, you’re not completely pretentious. There actually is a difference in quality.

In short: if you want to spend less money and ingest fewer calories, and if you hate yourself a little so you don’t mind abandoning frothy milk and whipped cream, go for the McDonald’s Pumpkin Spice “Latte.” If you’re willing to spend $1.50 more and get just a little bit fatter, you’ll thank yourself later. The Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte is the OG, overpriced-but-delicious, seasonal fall drink, and it looks like it’s going to stay that way.

[Image via]