On a cost-per-unit solids basis that might be true, but consider the basic reason we use such products — as sources of sweetness. As such, each source of sweetness delivers ever so slightly different amounts and “quality” of sweetness. Hence, each combination of sweeteners seeks to become more “sucrose-like” in sweetness delivery.

How does each sweetener now compare to themselves and to other evolving, novel and varying sources of solids and, of course, sweetness? 

Relative sweetness (i.e., theoretical sweetness vs. sucrose) is obvious and a good place to start. However, a further differentiating factor amongst and between sources of sweetness is the concept of “cost-per-unit sweetness” (CUS). CUS starts to make sense (cents!) in some interesting ways…

Let’s start with the basics.

There are three basic groups of sweeteners:

• Nutritive Sweeteners (i.e., sweeteners that have and deliver calories): These include sucrose, the HFCS’s, regular corn syrups (20-90 DE; plus syrup solids from other starch sources, e.g., tapioca, rice, potato), and maltodextrins (< 20 DE; plus maltodextrins from tapioca, rice, potato, and other starches). Even the “rare” sugars (e.g., allulose, tagatose, etc.) and nearly all sugar alcohols are “nutritive” per their specific caloric contributions. Relative sweetness versus sucrose varies greatly sweetener-to-sweetener.
• “Not-so-natural” (i.e., artificial) Non-nutritive Sweeteners (i.e., do not deliver significant caloric contribution, nor solids, to finished ice creams based on use rates): These include high-intensity sweeteners, such as acesulfame-k, aspartame, sucralose and the like. 
• “Natural” high-intensity sweeteners: These include monk fruit, stevia and extracts and purified fractions, or each as well as other natural extracts that have sweetness. Again, based on usage rates, these do not deliver caloric contributions to finished ice creams.

Across time, each group above has been “decoupled” from the other groups marketing and pricing-wise and each group finds itself competing with sources of sweetness within its own group. Thus, in most cases, pricing policies vary group-to-group including influences from “commodity” sources of sweetness. This means that despite being decoupled between groups, pricing within each group is highly competitive and leverageable.

Consider the following from 2023:

Although high-intensity sweeteners (HIS’s) have relatively stable and ultra-low CUS’s, there is still need for some sort of soluble solids (i.e., low calorie bulking agents), So, to  simply make ice cream and related products, not only for new market positioning but for current market positioning as well, sweeteners and bulking agents are needed. But ice cream manufacturers also have to manage a variety of mix analytics. These include: relative sweetness; freezing point-related analytics;  water control index; mix and ice cream densities (pounds per gallon); yields (gallons of finished ice cream per gallon of mix (including any yield improvements); freezing point; draw temperature (temperature at which 50% of the water in the mix is now ice); hardness index (amount of water as ice at a specific temperature coming out of hardening — 0 degrees Fahrenheit core temp? or -10 degrees Fahrenheit retail freezer temperature); texture stability index (amount of water that transitions from ice-to-water-to-ice between two select temperatures (0 F to +10 F.)

Ultimately, these myriad factors get compared to any given selected “control” or “current” ice cream being produced to determine likelihood of success throughout the ice cream making process and into the supply chain.

Given the above, it may be possible to use HIS with inherently low CUS not only to spare “sugars” and calories but also to address the ongoing demand for reduced cost per gallon of finished ice cream. This is appropriate as nearly 60% of an ice cream’s value coming out of manufacturing can be attributed to ingredient costs.

From there, additional margin demands from the manufacturer/marketer, supply chain and retailer compound to result in the final on-shelf pricing. Therefore, any savings, albeit small and/or limited, related to ingredients, particularly, mix ingredients, and thus, sweetener selection and use, gets compounded throughout the supply chain, and, ultimately, into final returns-on-investment back to manufacturers and marketers.

Aren’t you glad you asked??