A McDonald’s McCrispy with bacon quickly establishes the central appeal of this taste test: supposedly unpopular menu choices are not necessarily bad ones. The burger earns immediate “hidden gem” status for its crunch, while the Filet-O-Fish and apple pie receive much more restrained reactions. That contrast gives the ranking system some credibility, since the hosts are willing to separate genuine discoveries from items they simply find acceptable rather than declaring every unusual order underrated.
The search becomes more entertaining once employees begin suggesting items themselves. KFC’s barbecue beans are enthusiastically praised as a surprisingly good companion to chicken and chips, while Greggs’ sausage, bean and cheese bake becomes another unexpected favorite despite its mushy filling. Subway produces a more revealing middle ground: an unusual sausage-and-teriyaki combination initially seems destined for the bottom tier but gradually improves with each bite. These reactions feel spontaneous, and the willingness to revise first impressions keeps the tasting from becoming completely predictable.
The methodology, however, is extremely loose. Some employees identify what they believe sells least, while other selections apparently come from Google or an online search when staff cannot provide an answer. The McDonald’s segment even contains multiple items described as unpopular without clearly establishing how each qualifies. Later, Taco Bell’s supposedly least-popular choice is questioned by the hosts themselves because of its prominent menu position. As entertainment this inconsistency is harmless enough, but the premise never establishes reliable sales data proving that these actually are the least-ordered items at their respective chains.
Nando’s also demonstrates how the hosts sometimes interfere with their own experiment. Ordering the chicken livers extra hot makes the spice so dominant that they admit they struggle to assess the liver’s flavor properly. The dish eventually rises from the lowest category to mid-tier, largely because they acclimate to it, but recommending liver as a healthy choice is presented casually without enough nutritional context to support such a broad conclusion. Similar joking claims appear after Burger King’s plant-based Whopper impresses them, when enthusiasm for the burger turns into unsupported suggestions that plant-based or vegan food makes the meal healthy.
The Burger King tasting is nevertheless one of the better comic reversals. Both hosts approach the plant-based burger with skepticism, then enthusiastically concede that they enjoy it and rank it among the day's best discoveries. Five Guys provides the opposite result, with loaded fries dismissed as excessively cheesy, messy and lacking a meaningful payoff. Wingstop produces another useful contrast between an Atomic flavor whose extreme heat immediately explains its limited appeal and mango habanero, where the balance of sweetness and spice earns hidden-gem status.
The closing stretch delivers two of the strongest reactions. Popeyes’ Cruncher burger becomes one host’s favorite discovery, while a Domino’s pepperoni wrap surprises both of them enough that they question why it receives so little attention and is apparently absent from the displayed menu. Their final disagreement between Popeyes and Burger King is a fitting conclusion because it reflects two different kinds of discovery: an overlooked conventional fast-food item and a plant-based option they had approached with much lower expectations. The energetic friendship, employee interactions and constantly changing reactions make the lengthy chain-to-chain format lively, although repeated declarations that something is “incredible” or a “hidden gem” eventually lose some impact, and the extended Revolut promotion noticeably interrupts the tasting momentum.
Pros
- The simple three-tier ranking system gives the numerous tastings an easy structure to follow.
- Several genuine reversals, particularly at Subway and Burger King, make the reactions feel less predetermined.
- Employee interactions add variety and occasionally provide useful context about how rarely particular items are ordered.
- The wide range of restaurants produces convincing contrasts between disappointing, average and unexpectedly enjoyable choices.
- The final Popeyes-versus-Burger King disagreement gives the challenge a natural payoff rather than forcing complete agreement.
Cons
- There is no consistent evidence establishing that the featured foods really are each restaurant’s least-ordered items.
- Employee suggestions, internet searches and the hosts’ own assumptions are treated too interchangeably for the premise to be rigorous.
- Ordering the Nando’s livers extra hot makes it harder to judge the item itself fairly.
- Casual health claims about liver, vegan food and the plant-based Burger King meal are insufficiently supported.
- Repetitive superlatives and the lengthy sponsored segment weaken the pacing.
The challenge succeeds primarily as an energetic fast-food tasting rather than a reliable investigation of unpopular menu sales. Strong chemistry, several sincere surprises and enough disappointing dishes to preserve some suspense make the journey enjoyable, but a more consistent method for identifying genuinely unpopular items would have made the premise considerably stronger.
