If you mean nut, walnut, or apricot as snack: it's good. But Snickers is definitely not.
The quantity of it per unit volume or mass of the apricot, which affects satiety and the total quantity you are likely to eat of it, as well as other ingredients consumed alongside the sugars. For instance, a 44g snickers bar has 20g of sugars and 0.8g fiber; 165g of sliced apricot has only 15g of sugars and 3.3g of fiber; so less than a quarter of the sugar density by mass, with in the ballpark of the same fiber density, or about a four times higher fiber-to-sugar ratio for the apricot.
It lifts the individual food-items towards a more socioeconomic, structuralistic philosophy of society. Eating the Snickers bar is communicating "I do not care about my food-choices". It is about carelessness and sloth, a stigmatic act.
And even though there is a kernel of truth in your argument, it introduces more dogma into the whole food situation.
Quick Google search: apricots and Snickers both have 2% fiber content.
What ultimately matters is the glycemic index. An apricot has a GI of 34, whereas a Snickers bar is ~70.
(Just for the record, I never eat snacks like Snickers, haven't been to a McDonalds for over a decade, grow my own food, regularly eat nuts and work out thrice a week. I focus on balance in my food, with the right intake at the right moment. So, eating sugar isn't that bad, but your body needs to be able to use that energy directly.)
I could easily mow down a whole pack of oreos and a quart of milk (500 more calories). I have done so many times. I might do it tonight. I dunno about 150-180 apricots. That is only 200% of daily recommended fiber intake tho.
It's very difficult for a person eating normally to not get enough of their daily vitamin intake, so please specify the type.