Brand comparison
Barking Heads vs Wolf of Wilderness
A side-by-side of Barking Heads and Wolf Of Wilderness on the factors we score. Figures come from our current catalogue data, and each brand’s full review is linked below. We don’t show prices here.
Quick verdict
Two close cousins: dry-and-wet ranges of high-meat, chicken-led recipes, both honestly labelled. Barking Heads sits in our Good band and signposts recipes by size and need, with Little Paws, Big Foot and Fat Dog Slim. Wolf of Wilderness sits in our Excellent band and runs a much wider, wild-themed high-meat line-up. It takes it by a band on the strength of a wet range whose protein and processing is Excellent and whose nutritional balance is Outstanding. The split is signposted targeting versus sheer choice.
Choose Barking Heads if…
- You want its wet recipes, where nutritional balance reads Outstanding and protein and processing Excellent
- You want recipes signposted by size or need: Little Paws (small), Big Foot (large-breed puppy), Fat Dog Slim
- You want a grain-free option (All Hounder) in a dry-and-wet range
Choose Wolf Of Wilderness if…
- You want high-meat, grain-conscious kibble with a much wider choice of recipes
- You like the wild-herb character (dandelion root, nettle, yarrow) and 'Taste Of' tins
- You want the range that sits a band higher with us, our Excellent to our Good
Key differences
- Bands: Wolf of Wilderness sits in our Excellent band, Barking Heads in our Good band
- Targeting: Barking Heads signposts recipes by size and need; Wolf of Wilderness runs a wider, wild-themed high-meat line-up
- Range size: Wolf of Wilderness is far broader (23 products / 60 recipes) than Barking Heads (twelve / 21)
- Pillars: both read Outstanding on transparency, and both kibbles are Good on protein and processing with nutritional balance at Average. The split is the wet, where Wolf of Wilderness comes out ahead across its 25 recipes and Barking Heads sits just behind across seven
- Both are dry-and-wet only (nothing raw or cold-pressed), chicken-led, all life stages and every breed size
Side by side
- Breed-size-tailored recipes
- Grain-free options
- Dry or wet
- All life stages
- High-meat kibble
- Grain-conscious recipes
- Dry or wet feeding
- Every life stage
- Clearly signposted breed- and need-specific recipes
- Grain-free options and good transparency
- Named meats with prebiotic and herb inclusions
- High-meat kibble and wet food
- Wild herbs through the recipe lists
- A wide line-up across dry and wet
- No raw or cold-pressed option
- Nutritional balance reads Average on almost every dry recipe
- Playful names can oversell the targeting
- Dry and wet only, with no raw, fresh or cold-pressed
- The kibble and semi-moist recipes read below the wet
- Themed names can hide the differences between recipes
Ingredients & nutrition
These are close cousins, both dry-and-wet ranges of high-meat, chicken-led recipes, both honestly labelled. Barking Heads adds seaweed, lucerne, mixed herbs, beta glucans and chicory prebiotics, with potato in some recipes. It organises the range by job: Little Paws for small dogs, Big Foot for large-breed puppies, Fat Dog Slim, and the grain-free All Hounder. Wolf of Wilderness leans on a wild theme and folds in wild herbs (dandelion root, nettle, yarrow), linseed, chicory inulin and beet pulp across kibble and 'Taste Of' tins. As-fed protein is similar, running roughly 9 to 12% in the wet food up to about 30% in the kibble. The scoring barely separates them. On both kibbles, protein and processing is Good and nutritional balance Average. Both wet ranges read Excellent and Outstanding on those same two pillars, and transparency is Outstanding for both. Wolf of Wilderness's larger wet range lifts it into our Excellent band, with Barking Heads in our Good band.
Suitability & trade-offs
Both suit every life stage and breed size, both are dry-and-wet only with nothing raw or cold-pressed, and neither needs special storage. The useful difference is how you want to choose a recipe. Barking Heads makes it easy to pick by size or need, with a small-dog line, a large-breed-puppy line and a weight-focused recipe. The playful names suggest tighter targeting than the scoring shows, so read the specific recipe, not the name. Wolf of Wilderness gives you a far wider choice of high-meat, wild-themed recipes. Its themed naming can obscure how similar some recipes are, and its kibble reads Average on nutritional balance, as Barking Heads' does.
Our recommendation
Wolf of Wilderness is the stronger range with us, our Excellent band to Barking Heads' Good, so make it the default. You get a far wider high-meat catalogue with a wild-herb character, and a wet range with Outstanding nutritional balance and Excellent protein and processing. Choose Barking Heads when signposted size-and-need recipes matter most, accepting the band gap. Its wet recipes read just as well as Wolf of Wilderness's, and both kibbles sit at Average on nutritional balance. Put plainly: Wolf of Wilderness for sheer choice, Barking Heads for signposted recipes.
Common questions
Which scores higher, Barking Heads or Wolf of Wilderness?
Wolf of Wilderness, in our Excellent band to Barking Heads' Good. Transparency reads Outstanding for both, and their kibbles match too: Good for protein and processing, Average for nutritional balance. Both wet ranges read Excellent and Outstanding on those pillars, and Wolf of Wilderness's larger wet range lifts its average.
Does either do raw or cold-pressed?
No. Both are dry-and-wet ranges only. Neither offers raw or cold-pressed food.
Which is easier to choose by breed size?
Barking Heads does. It names recipes by size and need, like Little Paws for small dogs and Big Foot for large-breed puppies. Wolf of Wilderness organises around a wild theme.
Which has the bigger range?
Wolf of Wilderness, with 23 products across 60 recipes, against Barking Heads' twelve products and 21 recipes.
Are both high-meat?
Yes. Both are high-meat, chicken-led ranges, reaching around 30% protein as fed in the kibble and roughly 9 to 12% in the wet recipes.