No pressure 
I hope you’re doing well my friend!
I’ll try my best.
@Hdoyle I think both brands offer very good products and ultimately often comes to external, subjective factors. For instance, Feed is more expensive (€1.88/400kcal vs €1.54 before subscription), even more if you get the Sport version.
It seems that they have changed the formulation, and that the macronutrient split is similar to Huel’s now.
Feed: 33(+5 fiber)C/33F/29P
Huel Powder: 37C(+3fiber)/30F/30P
Looking at the nutrients
You can obvserve that they are very similar. This is you could make your Huel bigger and get a similar shake.
I have no information about monounsaturated fatty acids or polyunsaturated fatty acids for Feed. However, I do now that the omega-3/6 ratio is 1/3 which is good. What I don’t know is the quantities, but I expect them to be enough. Particularly when you consume Huel (which has plenty of them).
Looking at the ingredients;
Fats:
Most of Feed.'s fats seem to come from oil-free sunflower flour and vegetable fat (some kind of mix). They also use yellow flax for omega-3.
On the other hand, Huel uses flaxseeds, MCT (medium-chain triglycerydes) from coconut and sunflower oil powder (Note that the order matters, because it shows which one it contains most). For me the addition of MCTs is quite nice. You can read @JamesCollier’s article about the MCTs. Basically they are short fats, classified as saturated fats that are easier to digest and metabolise. The rate at which MCTs are absorbed is similar to that of glucose and faster than that of longer fats (“normal fats”).
Simply said, they are a good source of quick nutrition and energy that is no sugar (thus not causing a glucose spike in blood).
Carbohydrates:
Feed. seems to have more sugars than Huel (although the levels are really low, 4.6% of the RI per 400kcal and 8% per serving).
It also has more biver, probably mosly from oats.
Protein.
Always the part that I am most interested in.
They both use pea protein which is a fine plant based protein source but it has a “incomplete” amino acid profile. It is high in lysine (not a bad thing) and low in methionine.
While it does increase your muscle " recent evidence suggests that the ingestion of the plant-based proteins in soy and wheat results in a lower muscle protein synthetic response when compared with several animal-based proteins" (van Vilet et al, 2015).
Why all this gibberish? Because, the last article also says:
" Despite the proposed lower anabolic properties of plant vs. animal proteins, various strategies may be applied to augment the anabolic properties of plant proteins. These may include the following: 1) fortification of plant-based protein sources with the amino acids methionine, lysine, and/or leucine; "
In this case, pea protein is often fortified with Rice protein (which is high in methionine and low in lysine) by some brands to achieve a better mix. Brands like Huel. On the other hand Feed. does not use rice protein and relies on Oats to provide the other required amino acids.
This is not Feed.'s amino profile, but from a similar brand that uses pea protein only and relies on oats. This values are for 100g worth of protein using Huel (not 100g of Huel).
I was interested to see the differences in lysine and Huel being lower than I expected.
Probably @JamesCollier can shed some insight on this.
At the end of the day, I do not think it will matter for 99% of the population.
Micronutrients:
I often do the mistake of just brushing off and checking whether they provide enough % per serving (which some brands don’t). For instance, Feed. only provides 8% of Vitamin B8 (biotin) per serving.
% RI(1) per serving
| A | 34% | 270,75μg |
|---|---|---|
| B1 | 125% | 1,37mg |
| B2 | 47% | 0,66mg |
| B3 | 46% | 7,29mg |
| B5 | 44% | 2,65mg |
| B6 | 93% | 1,30mg |
| B8 | 8% | 3,75μg |
| B9 | 104% | 207,17μg |
| B12 | 42% | 1,06μg |
|---|---|---|
| C | 36% | 28,66mg |
| D | 60% | 3,01μg |
| E | 61% | 7,37mg |
| K | 34% | 25,51μg |
| Chromium | 30% | 12,00mg |
| Iron | 48% | 6,67mg |
| Potassium | 12% | 235,52mg |
| Manganese | 110% | 2,20mg |
|---|---|---|
| Selenium | 39% | 21,36μg |
| Zinc | 39% | 3,91mg |
| Copper | 87% | 0,87mg |
| Iodine | 95% | 142,16μg |
| Calcium | 32% | 254,51mg |
| Phosphorus | 37% | 260,14mg |
| Magnesium | 47% | 177,72mg |
Bien sur, Huel provides with at least 20% of each vitamin and mineral per serving.
However, there is another thing I want to remark, as it was shared recently in this forum (Why You Shouldn't RELY on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements - #17 by ChristinaT).
In this video, the author talks about vitamin B9 or folate. He points to videos and papers stating that folic acid (Feed.'s source of B9) and folate (which Huel uses as source, L-Methylfolate ).
Very simply put, L-methylfolate is more easily digested in the body, while folic acid takes a lot longer and slows absorbtion of more vit B9.
Better explained here: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/folic-acid-vs-folate#section2. Also in the papers they list.
I’m not expert in the issue, but there seems to be a point.
Similarly, Huel has independent sources for Vitamin K2 (as MK-7), which is consider optimal, even though the roles of Vit K1 and Vit K2 need to be further researched. It seems that Huel has covered here. It seems that Feed has Vit K2 as MK-7 too.
Other.
This is a little subjective, too. Feed. contains acesulfame-k (or acesulfame potassium) as a sweetener. There is some concern about the alleged carcinogenic effects of this sweetener, although FDA has reviewed it and approved it and the EU has declared it safe to use as well.
The artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium affects the gut microbiome and body weight gain in CD-1 mice (don’t take research done on mice to 100% face value).
Currently there seems to be a lot of missinformation and FUD on the issue, but I know by fact that few MR manufacturers have swapped it out of their formulas.
All in all, it is up to you. I think both are good products with their ups and downs. I have given you some info, but nothing that is not already there yet.
My philosophy is that most things in moderation they don’t do much harm. Both are big brands and have teams dedicated to take care of the nutrition aspect.
I think the reasons to change should be external (i.e. taste preferrence, price, convenience…).
Have a good day