MyGolfSpy Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls on the market to help you find the best ball for your money. Today, we’re taking a look at the Sugar Golf ball. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

a photo of sugar golf balls and the sugar cube golf ball packaging

About the Sugar Golf Ball

The Sugar Golf ball is notable for a few reasons. First, I’m a fan of the company’s marketing. Sugar balls are sold in either a 27-count Sugar Cube ($59.95) or a three-count Sugar Packet ($6.95). It’s clever, maybe even a little fun.

The ball itself is a three-piece, injected urethane offering. Like many others in the direct-to-consumer space, the Sugar Golf ball is designed to compete with the Pro V1 and, as you should have come to expect, the marketing material features all the requisite comparisons.

With respect to what we do here, the Sugar Golf ball is notable for where it’s made. The ball is produced by Launch Technologies in Taiwan. We haven’t discussed “LT” as frequently as Foremost (Maxfli, Vice, Wilson) or even Nassau (TaylorMade, Snell) but, as those factories allocate more of their production capacity to larger clients, Launch Tech is becoming the factory of choice for upstart and existing DTC brands. In addition to Sugar, LT produces golf balls for Odin, MG and, most recently, the second generation of the OnCore ELIXR. While there can be exceptions, if you see a 350-count dimple pattern on a DTC ball, it’s likely coming from Launch Tech.

As far as bigger OEMs go, Launch Tech’s most notable client is likely Callaway. It’s the factory that produces Supersoft and the chip-embedded TopGolf balls. Srixon and Mizuno are also LT customers.

To date, the balls we’ve looked at from Launch Tech have been hit or miss but it’s been suggested that improving quality is at the top of nearly everyone’s list right now so we were certainly curious to see how its urethane offerings stack up against those of the other top Asian ball factories.


On our gauge, the Sugar Golf balls have an average compression of 79. That’s significantly softer than the Pro V1. The closest comps in our database are the original OnCore ELIXR as well as the Vero X1. Titleist AVX and Tour Speed are also in the same general ballpark.

Diameter and Weight

With respect to the USGA rules for weight and diameter, we found no issues with the Sugar Golf balls. No ball exceeded the weight limit nor did we find any that failed to meet the minimum size requirements.

Neither heavy nor light, neither big nor small, weight and diameter are solidly within the average range.


Centeredness and Concentricity

One of a few balls with a concentricity defect. Note the approximately 2x thicker mantle on the right side of the image.

Concentricity defects proved to be a bit of an issue with the Sugar Golf balls. In total, we flagged eight percent of the sample as “bad.” In each case, the issue was unevenness in mantle/casing layers where one side was significantly thinner than the other. The affected balls would likely produce greater dispersion and inconsistent spin rates.

Core Consistency

A standard Sugar Golf ball core (left) compared to what appears to be an improperly mixed core (right)

Core color was generally consistent. However, we did note a swirly appearance in a couple of cores. In at least one case, the core variation correlated with a significant difference in compression.


No significant cover defects were noted.


In this section, we detail the consistency of the Sugar Golf ball. Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.

Weight Consistency

  • While we found a couple of outliers, weight consistency falls within the average range.

Diameter Consistency

  • Generally speaking, diameter consistency falls within the average range.
  • Ball 5 from dozen No. 1, both the largest and the lightest ball in the sample, was flagged as bad due to poor layer concentricity.

Compression Consistency

  • Compression consistency qualifies as poor.
  • Two balls were flagged as bad due to significant compression deviation from the rest of the sample.
  • The 23-point compression delta across the sample is among the absolute worst we’ve seen.
  • To put that in perspective, it’s roughly the difference between a Maxfli Noodle and a Titleist Pro V1x.
  • We had to adjust the scale of the compression portion of the chart above to show all of the balls.

True Price

True Price is how we quantify the quality of a golf ball. It's a projection of what you'd have to spend to ensure you get 12 good balls.

The True Price will always be equal to or greater than the retail price. The greater the difference between the retail price and the True Price, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.


To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

While I understand the appeal of a value-priced DTC offering that purports to be as good or better than the leading brand, the Sugar Golf ball simply does not live up to the billing. While it’s solidly average for weight and diameter consistency, it’s not only poor for compression consistency, it’s among the very worst we’ve seen to date. Eight percent of the sample was flagged as bad for significant layer concentricity issues.

If you’re looking to save money on a multi-layer urethane offering, there are numerous better direct-to-consumer options available.

The Good

  • Average weight and diameter consistency
  • Value priced

The Bad

  • Five balls in the sample were flagged as bad.
  • Layer concentricity is problematic.
  • Compression consistency is terrible.

Final Grade

The Sugar Golf ball gets an overall grade of 57.

My advice is to spend your money elsewhere.

*We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.