The awkwardness of asking employees for internet-famous items they have never heard of quickly becomes the central joke, but it also exposes the basic problem with the secret-menu concept. Burger King’s supposed “Suicide Burger” has to be translated into four beef patties and four slices of cheese, producing an enormous creation that earns a respectable three out of five while still being judged too excessive and poor-value for the regular menu. That early encounter establishes a useful distinction the hosts return to throughout: some items genuinely seem recognized by staff, while others are simply custom orders assembled from ordinary ingredients.
Tim Hortons demonstrates how loose that distinction can become. The nine-sugar, nine-milk “Wayne Gretzky” coffee is successfully constructed but dismissed as overwhelmingly sweet, while the attempted London Fog falls apart when Earl Grey is unavailable and green tea enters the equation. The hosts openly acknowledge that what they end up making is not really the advertised secret item, which is amusingly self-aware but also highlights the experiment’s inconsistency. A lengthy Revolut promotion immediately afterward interrupts the momentum just as the central premise is beginning to develop.
Subway fares much better on taste, with the marinara-covered, double-cheese spicy Italian variation receiving enthusiastic approval even as the hosts question whether it qualifies as secret at all. That tension becomes one of the more interesting recurring themes: customization can produce something genuinely worth ordering without proving the existence of a hidden menu. The later iced coffee inspired by Kinder Bueno similarly requires ingredient-level instructions rather than recognition of a named item, and the hosts disagree sharply on whether the resulting drink is decent or terrible.
Nando’s provides the closest thing to a breakthrough because the “Peri Flamer” is actually recognized during ordering. The surrounding experiments—halloumi and chili jam added to peri-salted chips and peri mayonnaise mixed into mash—are treated more skeptically because they feel like combinations rather than established hidden dishes. The Peri Flamer itself gets a much warmer response for its spicy sauce, helping Nando’s reach 4.3 out of five. The segment works particularly well because the hosts’ running argument over whether the item exists finally receives a clear answer at the counter rather than being settled through improvisation afterward.
Five Guys then delivers the strongest combination of recognition and execution. The “patty melt” is understood as grilled cheese with patties added, and the hosts enjoy the reversed bread-and-burger texture enough to push the restaurant to a 4.5 average. The supposed “Sloppy Joe,” by contrast, is assembled through a combination of burger toppings and sauces but is explicitly treated as not being a genuine secret-menu item. Greggs’ Tottenham cake and Chipotle’s tortilla-chip-under-the-bowl hack broaden the experiment further, although the latter is criticized as salty, underwhelming and not worth the additional effort required to request it.
Starbucks returns the challenge to elaborate drink customization, and sweetness becomes the dominant complaint. Neither the Twix nor Butterbeer Frappuccino is recognized simply by name, forcing ingredient instructions instead; the Twix combination is considered especially syrup-heavy, while the Butterbeer version fares somewhat better. The finale at McDonald’s follows the same pattern on a larger scale: the alleged eight-patty Monster Mac is not recognized, so the hosts build a “Land, Sea and Air” from a Big Mac, McChicken and Filet-O-Fish. They appreciate its novelty and impressive cross-section more than its muddled, bread-heavy flavor, settling on 3.5 out of five and leaving Five Guys as the winner.
Pros
- Repeatedly testing whether employees recognize the supposed secret-menu names gives the premise more substance than simply assembling internet recipes at home.
- The hosts openly distinguish recognized items from custom combinations, including admitting when an attempted order does not qualify as the advertised creation.
- Nando’s Peri Flamer and Five Guys patty melt provide satisfying examples where staff recognition supports the idea of genuinely established off-menu ordering.
- Taste judgments remain specific enough to explain the scores, from the excessive sweetness of several drinks to the salty Chipotle bowl and bread-heavy McDonald’s combination.
- The hosts’ contrasting reactions and discomfort while ordering give the challenge an entertaining comic dynamic without completely overwhelming the food evaluation.
Cons
- The definition of a “secret menu item” changes substantially between recognized names, customized standard products, hacks assembled at the table and ordinary items presented under unofficial names.
- Several tests cannot actually verify the advertised item because employees do not recognize it and the hosts substitute their own approximation.
- The scoring methodology is inconsistent, with some items losing points for not being genuine while restaurant-level averages are sometimes derived from very different kinds of orders.
- The extended sponsorship and recurring bits occasionally distract from what is already a naturally entertaining premise.
- Some combinations receive only brief evaluation before the challenge moves on, limiting the usefulness of the video for viewers considering ordering them themselves.
The challenge is funniest when internet secret-menu mythology collides with employees who have no idea what the hosts are requesting, but the genuinely recognized Nando’s and Five Guys orders also give the experiment some payoff. Loose definitions and improvised substitutes prevent it from being a rigorous test of secret menus, yet the hosts are transparent enough about those limitations that the resulting food tour remains lively and entertaining.
