Thirty-two menu items create a simple but surprisingly revealing test of what actually makes McDonald’s food distinctive. Rhett and Link move from basic hamburgers through larger variations, chicken and fish, wraps, sides and desserts, scoring each as they go. The format works because they are not merely asking whether something tastes good; they repeatedly consider proportions, familiarity and whether an item has the recognizable qualities they associate with McDonald’s.
The burger section produces some of the clearest comparisons. The plain hamburger suffers from too much bread relative to meat, while the cheeseburger improves matters and the McDouble gets closer to the preferred balance. The Daily Double is an interesting discovery, but its mayo, tomato, lettuce and sliced onion make it feel less characteristically McDonald’s to them. Their strongest agreement comes around the double cheeseburger, where two patties and two slices of cheese produce the combination they ultimately prefer even over the Big Mac.
That direct comparison with the Big Mac gives the tasting more value than a succession of isolated scores. Nostalgia initially helps the Big Mac considerably, but its middle bun becomes a meaningful disadvantage once it sits beside the simpler double cheeseburger. The Quarter Pounder variations similarly demonstrate that more ingredients or more meat do not automatically improve a sandwich. Bacon, lettuce, tomato and even the enormous double Quarter Pounder can disrupt the particular ratios the hosts are looking for rather than enhance them.
Chicken produces much greater disagreement, which is entertaining even when it makes the scoring system look increasingly subjective. Link gives the McChicken a brutal 21 while Rhett remains reasonably positive, and their opinions split dramatically on the McCrispy Strips, with Rhett at 85 and Link at 48. The newer McCrispy sandwiches are judged partly against modern fast-food chicken sandwiches, while McNuggets benefit heavily from nostalgia. The Filet-O-Fish performs unexpectedly well for both, with its unusual identity and half-slice of cheese becoming part of the discussion rather than an automatic liability.
Sides and desserts supply some of the funniest extremes. Fresh McDonald’s fries score 92 and 98 and eventually earn a place near the top, while apple slices, the chocolate shake and M&M McFlurry provoke considerably less enthusiasm from at least one host. The baked apple pie receives unusually strong agreement, and the Oreo McFlurry exposes another major split: Rhett scores it 92 while Link gives it 70 because he considers other ice cream options superior. These disagreements keep the exercise from feeling predetermined, although the constant numerical ratings are more entertaining than rigorous and sometimes seem inconsistent with the hosts’ verbal reactions.
The final ranking wisely returns to side-by-side tasting instead of relying entirely on those scores. Comparing the Big Mac and double cheeseburger in the same sitting lets Rhett and Link articulate why the simpler burger wins: the cheese between the patties, familiar onions, manageable size and absence of the Big Mac’s extra bread all matter. Fries remain strong enough to take another top position, while the apple pie receives recognition as the standout dessert. That produces a conclusion based on specific sensory preferences rather than merely declaring whichever item happened to receive the highest earlier number.
Pros
- Direct comparisons between closely related burgers make differences in meat, cheese, bread and toppings unusually clear.
- Rhett and Link’s frequent disagreements give the tasting personality and prevent the rankings from feeling predetermined.
- The double cheeseburger versus Big Mac comparison provides a convincing final test rather than relying solely on earlier numerical scores.
- Less obvious items such as the Daily Double, Filet-O-Fish and apple pie receive enough attention to make the menu sweep feel worthwhile.
- The rapid jokes and nostalgic observations keep a long sequence of tastings moving without overwhelming the food discussion.
Cons
- The scoring scale is deliberately strange and the hosts sometimes assign numbers that do not seem fully consistent with their verbal reactions.
- Nostalgia influences several judgments, particularly around McNuggets and the Big Mac, making the exercise more personal than comparative.
- Thirty-two items inevitably creates repetition, especially among closely related McCrispy and Quarter Pounder variations.
- The merchandise promotion immediately before the final ranking interrupts the momentum at the point when the tasting should be reaching its payoff.
The marathon tasting succeeds less as a definitive ranking than as an entertaining demonstration of why McDonald’s simplest combinations remain so recognizable. Strong host chemistry, useful side-by-side comparisons and a genuinely contested final ranking compensate for an inconsistent scoring system and some repetition across similar menu items. The double cheeseburger’s eventual victory feels earned because the hosts explain exactly why simplicity and proportion beat larger or more elaborate alternatives.
