1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Budweiser - Anheuser-Busch

Not Rated.
BudweiserBudweiser

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
56
awful

4,394 Ratings
THE BROS
80
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 4,394
Reviews: 1,432
rAvg: 2.33
pDev: 33.05%
Wants: 16
Gots: 266 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Anheuser-Busch visit their website
Missouri, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
Brewed using a blend of imported and classic American aroma hops, and a blend of barley malts and rice. Budweiser is brewed with time-honored methods including “kraeusening” for natural carbonation and Beechwood aging, which results in unparalleled balance and character.

(Beer added by: kbub6f on 11-21-2000)
View: Beers (79) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Budweiser Alström Bros
Ratings: 4,394 | Reviews: 1,432 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of jdmorgan
jdmorgan

Virginia

2.48/5  rDev +6.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

This beer had a moderate head that didn't last long and the color was light. The aroma was fairly weak and smelled faintly of the malt. The taste wasn't very hoppy and had a thin body to it. The mouthfeel felt about average and had a moderate to high carbonation to it. As far as drinkability goes, I think this beer would be adequate for those who just want to have a reasonably priced macro lager that atleast has a bit more body to it than light lagers.

Serving type: bottle

03-29-2006 19:30:44 | More by jdmorgan
Photo of Pepeton
Pepeton

Mexico

2.03/5  rDev -12.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3.5

I have no excuse. I tried this one because I couldn't avoid it in a social gathering.

It's appearance is almost non existant.

Smells of almost nothing.

Taste is less of almost nothing.

Mouthfeel is, again, less of almost nothing.

Ah! It's high is in it's drinkability. Easy to gulp.

If it weren't for it's drinkability Bud would be almost a beer.

¡Salud!

Serving type: can

03-28-2006 02:26:44 | More by Pepeton
Photo of DrJay
DrJay

Massachusetts

2.35/5  rDev +0.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Crystal clear and very light yellow, it looks kind of like watered down apple juice. The fluffy white head dissipated rapidly. Faint malt in the nose, along with a hint of apple and alcohol. Light grainy malt and just a whiff of hop bitterness and sweetness at the end. Just a bit of fruit here as well. Thin body, crisp carbonation and very clean. This isn't as terrible as many believe, just incredibly boring with a thin flavour. I've had some very nice "light" beers from smaller brewers lately with delicate flavours and light bodies that completely outclass this beer.

Serving type: bottle

03-26-2006 19:02:11 | More by DrJay
Photo of maddamish
maddamish

Tennessee

2.5/5  rDev +7.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

I am not here to slam on bud. BUt I will say this.

When I was a bud light drinker, I would switch to this and would think about how strong this beer was.

I walked in the door of my parents house and my father had one of these out. I jump at the chance to drink it again since I haven't tried it since I have been reviewing beers.

Lets just say that it isn't what I remembered. It isn't bad for a lager but there are much better versions of the style out there. This one is watery and the "strong taste" was pretty much gone.

After you have crossed over into the world of good beer, it is kind of hard to go back to the BMC crowd.

Serving type: bottle

03-23-2006 23:08:44 | More by maddamish
Photo of mcarroll10177
mcarroll10177

Massachusetts

3.28/5  rDev +40.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 5

Keep in mind the syle of the beer before laughing at this review.

With that cavat in mind this is prime example of an American macro lager.

Poured from a can into a traditional pint glass.

A- very pale yellow with a white head that disappears quickly. Lots of fizz and lots of carbination.

S- does not have really any nose to it. Hints of hops perhaps. That being said it does not smell bad, like a particular green bottled beer for instance.

T- a good tasting beer for what it is. No complexity at all but that is not what this style beer is about. Crisp up front, clean clean finish.

M- nothing really stands out here, watery but this is not a Russian Imperial Stout, so what should someone expect.

D- the easiest drinker around smooth and very clean. The best example of a macro lager and the only one( in my opinion) worth a review. Nothing complex here, but nothing offensive either.

If going strictly by style for review give it 4.5s this is the best of the big mass produced macro lagers.

Serving type: can

03-15-2006 22:47:03 | More by mcarroll10177
Photo of lpayette
lpayette

Vermont

2.7/5  rDev +15.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 4.5

Pours a crystal clear, very pale straw color with a bright white head into my pilsner glass. Excellent retention as well. Tons of bubbles.

Smells of light corn, and hops. Not as bad as some beers in this style as far as smell, but still nothing to be impressed with.

Tastes- Very light... Some corn/rice and a very light hop bitterness. Very one-dimensional as expected, but drinkable as it goes down pretty easy with no awful tastes coming through. Another positive is that it's pretty fresh tasting.

Serving type: can

03-13-2006 06:02:57 | More by lpayette
Photo of Rumpole
Rumpole

Massachusetts

3.68/5  rDev +57.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

There was a time when I snobbishly cast aspersions upon this beer, but that was ages ago when I was drinking expensive microbrews and imports. With the change of the economy, and more enlightened attitudes towards the middle and working classes amongst our betters in government, I now look upwards, financially at least, at what I formerly scorned down upon. I have also come to admit that what I then denigrated was more the marketing image of Budweiser rather than the brew itself.

The King of Beers, whether in the bottle or the can, comes with arguably the best label in the business. It is iconic in the whole realm of commercial art, let alone that of beer, and over the years it has been tweaked by A-B to keep it looking contemporary without losing its traditional look and with it the connection with all those previous decades; the result is nothing short of spectacular.

Budweiser pours pale and clear gold, so pale and clear that it surprised me at first. It’s nothing to worry about, as it simply reflects A-B’s use of rice as the adjunct grain for the brew. For all its clarity, it still delivers a solid 5% abv, and once that has been proven, and time is spent with the beer, the color takes on a bright cheeriness.

The scent is very light and faint, pretty much just a beer smell but with a light herbal and floral quality floating over it. It has a light body and light maltiness too, with a wisp of hop to balance the upper register. For most of the tasting, it’s just that light flavor, but there can be an ethereal sweet fruitiness that flickers in and then back out almost as quickly, almost before you can grasp it. It’s like a cross between green grapes, green apples, and Wrigley’s Juicy Fruit, which I admit doesn’t sound very appetizing, but it sure does work in this beer, and with practice you can get so you can look for and anticipate it. It wraps up dry, neat and tidy. Throughout, the texture is just plain wonderful; it has a very consistent softness, like they used top-flight spring water, and the carbonation is energetic but fine, as if they specified only very small bubbles, but a lot of them. The result is lively but never harsh, and it becomes very easy to keep going for more. Endlessly potable; the Rumpole palate has gone through many cases without wearying of it.

King indeed! Maybe it isn't the best beer available, but it may very well be the easiest beer to drink, and its popularity no longer mystifies me. It is underrated on this site, I think, but mostly because of the tarnished reputation of the mega-brewer that makes it, and its tendency towards crass, lowest common denominator marketing. That’s easy to overlook though, with the beer this enjoyable and the label this classy. Budweiser’s biggest drawback is it’s hefty price; outside of special sales, a 30-pack costs $21 in glamorous Worcester, MA. A-B engages in a regular price increase for its brews, and as a result it may eventually be in danger of pricing its bread and butter brand out of its intended market.

Serving type: can

03-08-2006 18:32:13 | More by Rumpole
Photo of CNeilP09
CNeilP09

Georgia

3.85/5  rDev +65.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 5

I can drink this beer for days. Budweiser is what it is: a mass-produced lager fit for the working man. It is certainly light, lacking any of the characteristics most beer connoiseurs ask for in a beer. But Budweiser is the everyday man's beer. It's made of rice, and the finest hops anyone can grow in their backyard, but it's still good. I've spent many a sweaty day, working in my yard, or on my truck, just waiting for the reward i would get from Budweiser. Call the beer simple, or call me simple, i love this beer. It's ultra light straw color, utterly scentless nose, and rustic grainy flavor do nothing for me but quench the thirst in my belly. I'm certainly not writing this to advertise for them, they do enough of that on their own. Simply put, it's the best worst beer out there. And to get a taste of America, crack open a cold Bud.

Serving type: bottle

03-05-2006 04:52:37 | More by CNeilP09
Photo of thebarnesbomb
thebarnesbomb

Indiana

2.98/5  rDev +27.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Well well, the king of beers? An intruiging statement, I had to give it a try... So I didn't bother pouring it, sorry. It was actually a little darker than my expectancy, so extra points for that. The smell, nothing special, hard to pick out anything from it. Mostly a faint hoppiness. The taste is basically the same. Nothing too spectacular going on, but hey what do you expect? It is a good crisp beer, refreshing for sure, not too heavy, giving a good drinkability to it. For what it is attempting, a cheap and crisp beer that's refreshing every time, it passes with flying colors.

Serving type: bottle

03-04-2006 04:46:51 | More by thebarnesbomb
Photo of danielharper
danielharper

Michigan

2.53/5  rDev +8.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Purchased from the gas station near by apartment, Huntsville, AL.

Freshness date of 25 JAN 06. 16oz can.

A: Pours into my favorite pint glass with a light yellow, completely transparent, body and a very thick white foamy head. The head makes it look a bit like an ice cream float, but no ice cream was ever the color of Budweiser. Head dissipates over time, but leaves very little lacing.

S: Not a lot here. Vaguely corny aroma, slightly unpleasant due to a grassy overtone. Not as sweet as Bud Light. Not terrible, but not good.

T: Strong grainy flavor, notes of corn and rice. No hops present. Sweet, slightly astringent aftertaste. More flavor than other macros, but grating over time.

M: Nice carbonation, thin body, leads to a decent mouthfeel. Pleasant to swish around the palate, although the astringency increases as I do so.

D: More unpleasant than the light variety. Leaves an unpleasant aftertaste, but it works well with spicy food. I've tasted a lot worse beers, craft and macro, but this one isn't going to be in my fridge regularly, although I occasionally have one when eating out. If you're going to drink it, drink it ice-cold.

Serving type: can

02-26-2006 21:31:58 | More by danielharper
Photo of Opethsprite
Opethsprite

Kentucky

1.6/5  rDev -31.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Nothing special to look at--a truly piss-yellow with a white head. The smell is sweet and overly-floral...and very overly synthetic. Not much taste to speak of, or what taste there might be is covered by WAY too much carbonation. Hints of vinegar are present between the overpowering, disruptive carbonation. You gotta be pretty desperate to drink this.

Serving type: bottle

02-23-2006 22:01:12 | More by Opethsprite
Photo of LarryV
LarryV

Massachusetts

3/5  rDev +28.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours with a really thick, fluffy head that takes a moment to calm down. Aroma is grainy, clean, slight. Color is a light golden color.
Taste is crisp, clean with a bit of grain. Quick finish doesn't linger long on the palate. Served cold with a pizza, it's actually a pretty refreshing beer that doesn't demand much of the consumer. Doesn't have that sweet flavor that a lot of macros have. Not bad for the style.

Serving type: can

02-22-2006 17:55:28 | More by LarryV
Photo of hunteraw
hunteraw

China

2.75/5  rDev +18%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Considering the amount of Bud I've had in college (for better or worse) it's surprising it's taken me so long to actually jot down some notes and review it, but here goes:

Appearance is prototypical AML, heavily carbonated straw. Grainy and malty smell, slightly sweetm, Bud reminds you that drinking beer is like drinking bread. That breadiness dominates the taste, along with hops bitterness. Highly carbonated, malt finish... Not a whole lot to be said for a beer everyone knows so well. I don't care what anyone says, on a hot day when you're fishing or sailing, Bud out of a can has a certain charm. Still a hell of a lot better than all of the light beers out there.

Serving type: can

02-19-2006 07:26:21 | More by hunteraw
Photo of oldirtycaffrey
oldirtycaffrey

Virginia

2.5/5  rDev +7.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

What is left be said of Bud?

Color is pale yellow w/ a slight head that dissipates pretty quickly. The smell is grainy and slightly sweet. The taste is a little bitter; lots of carbonation. It goes down easy and would be fine to have really cold with a burger or hot dog on a summer day. However, like most would agree, it's not a flavorful beer, and if you're used to higher end stuff, this will surely dissapoint you.

Serving type: bottle

02-18-2006 20:47:08 | More by oldirtycaffrey
Photo of evanackerman
evanackerman

Minnesota

2.8/5  rDev +20.2%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4.5

well, finally getting around to reviewing "the king of beers"

this beer looks terrible, absolutely terrible, very pale yellow with a fizzy white head that disappears rapidly, actually better to drink out of the bottle so you don't have to see how crappy it looks.

aroma is faint grain and alcohol.

taste is unbeleivable clean and boring, a hint of malt, just a touch of hops, very very bland.


boring boring boring. goes down smooth though, a good beer to cook your brats in.

Serving type: bottle

02-17-2006 02:41:25 | More by evanackerman
Photo of kmo1030
kmo1030

Massachusetts

3.13/5  rDev +34.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

pale yellow colored with a fizzy white head that hangs around for a minute and then quickly recedes.
the aroma is sweet and sort of corny with some grainyness with a hint of floral hops in there somewhere.
the taste is sweet and grainy with and just sort of adjunct-y. it's very evident there is rice in there. it's starchy. a slightly less than moderate amount of bitterness at the back. fairly balanced and quite quenching, i'll give it that.
almost medium bodied and fizzy mouthfeel.
it does go down easily, and as mch as A-B is the devil around these parts, it's really not a bad beer.

Serving type: bottle

02-14-2006 01:32:01 | More by kmo1030
Photo of bearrunner44
bearrunner44

Illinois

3.25/5  rDev +39.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4.5

Appearance- Straw yellow. An inch or two of thin, fizzy white head. Incredible clarity, but hardly any color.

Smell- Husky grain. Lemony, sour hop notes poke through.

Taste- Smooth, lively mouthfeel. Sharply carbonated. Extremely thin malt profile, mostly dry in character. Cream corn flavors also pop up. It's fairly well-hopped for a macro. The hops are unusually low in acids; the vaguely citric flavor is there, but none of the herbal qualities show up. Annoyingly artificial-tasting, but drinkable.

Verdict- Inoffensive and reasonably flavorful for a canned beer.

Serving type: can

02-13-2006 04:17:54 | More by bearrunner44
Photo of andythejerk
andythejerk

Utah

1.65/5  rDev -29.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 1 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

Wow. It's been a while since I've had a bud. It's even worse than I remember. A buddy had been using this stuff to cook bratwurst in, and left some cans in my fridge. I thought, what the hell, I'll just drink one. It'll be tasteless and boring, but oh well. Well, it was worse than that. I couldn't finish the 16 oz. can--I just didn't have the heart after about half the can. Luckily, a buddy came by and he shotgunned the remaining brew. Don't drink Bud, even if it's been left in your fridge. Cook with it, donate it to a needy frat, whatever, just don't drink it.

Serving type: can

02-13-2006 03:43:37 | More by andythejerk
Photo of rodrot
rodrot

North Carolina

2.17/5  rDev -6.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3

This beer poured a very pale yellow color with a large head that dissipated quickly. The bubbles rising to the top of the glass were quite large and the head did not stick to the sides of the glass, which is typical for this style of beer. The aroma was fruity, with the trademark smell of adjuncts. Taste was also quite fruity, with a good bit of sweetness. Is this a wine cooler? I could not detect any hop character and very little malt taste. This brew is very light bodied and I guess would be a good choice after mowing the lawn. Next time I'm in the mood for a light lager, I'll go for an all malt beer instead.

Serving type: can

02-09-2006 17:45:07 | More by rodrot
Photo of hanco005
hanco005

Minnesota

2.98/5  rDev +27.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12oz can born on Dec 15th, 05, poured into a pint glass.

A---pale, bright clear yellow with almost no head, the little head that it does have quickly disappears, no lacing left on the glass

S—not really sure. I think I may smell faint hops and a little straw.

T—not bad, but not great , just kinda there. Not offensive at all. Finishes a little dry and slightly bitter.

M—watery and thin, but also crisp; medium carbonation

D—I think it is very drinkable, there is nothing offensive about this beer. It just doesn’t have the bolder flavors that I like in a beer. I can understand it’s popularity and would drink this again if it were offered to me (and there were no micro/crafts available).

Serving type: can

02-05-2006 03:46:06 | More by hanco005
Photo of palffyfan
palffyfan

Massachusetts

2.45/5  rDev +5.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Appearance - Pale yellow with about an inch of foam, along with carbonation bubbles.

Smell - Nothing special.

Taste - Strong, yet bearable. Gets soapy after awhile. After tasting some of the finer beers, it just doesn't stand up.

Drinkability - Out of all of the macro lagers, perhaps the most drinkable beer. I have yet to get tired of it and is great after a warm day or when your friends come over. (07/09 Edit: used to be drinkable, but after tasting other macros, there are much better tasting drinks for the price)

Serving type: can

02-03-2006 01:45:58 | More by palffyfan
Photo of Mebuzzard
Mebuzzard

Colorado

2.83/5  rDev +21.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Had the aluminum bottle thingy. Of course, no appearance, but i'm guessing its pale yellow.
The best thing about the aluminum bottle is that the beer is (or feels) a lot colder. And this is good on a summer day. Makes it easier to drink, that's for sure. Other than that, no major difference between this and the bottle. It'll do for parties or a cheap(er) drink at the watering hole.

Serving type: can

01-30-2006 20:42:57 | More by Mebuzzard
Photo of Tallboy
Tallboy

Antarctica

1.65/5  rDev -29.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

This is not the King of Beers, as labled....trust me. Maybee it was back in the 1800's when you had but 2 other brands to choose from: The color is as any other, a light fizzy yellow. The smell was too skunky for a macro. The taste was for the most part like tap watter with a ABV. The mouthfeel is too dry and what I would call as being light with no bite. Drinkability? Nill... For the Money it's a waste.

Serving type: bottle

01-30-2006 14:06:50 | More by Tallboy
Photo of becktone
becktone

Ohio

1.63/5  rDev -30%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Before I even open this beer, I am going to guess at its appearance. I've never had Budweiser in anything but a can so I've never seen what it looks like. However I believe I can give a pretty accurate description of this beer. First off this is a fizzy yellow beer, it is yellow, clear, and has relatively no head. In addition to that it has no lacing. Overall it dosen't look very good. It looks like what it is a macro beer.
It is packaged in the can that I remember my grandfather drinking this beer from, I guess if anything Budweiser is consistent. I am actually surprised by the appearance of this beer. It is very pale and fizzy like I predicted, however, it poured with a head! I am and was amazed. There's a bit of lacing. The head now, between the time it took me to write this and when I poured this beer is mostly gone. When agitated it thickens up a bit but returns to its previous state. The appearance for this beer is average for a macro beer.

To the nose this beer is bland. Not much in the way of hop or malt character. I can only describe this beer's aroma is as the way that any macro smells. It dosn't smell good but then again it dosn't smell terrible. The aroma of this isn't appetizing, that's it.

Wow, the taste of this beer is even more bland than its aroma. tastes much like water. No hop or malt character, at least not enough to make note of. It dosn't taste bad, but its not good either.

Mouthfeel: Feels like tonic water.

The drinkability of this beer is ok. Its definitely not something that I'd ever really want to buy, unless I was hosting a party. Infact, I took this can from a party. It is however really easy to drink and goes down easy, you could drink this forever, but would you want to? I don't recommend this beer to anybody, unless you are a fan of macros. If that is the case and all you drink is macros, then this may well be the "king of beers" as far as your knowledge of beer goes.

Serving type: can

01-30-2006 01:04:26 | More by becktone
Photo of VoodooBrew
VoodooBrew

South Carolina

2.38/5  rDev +2.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

I've had this beer a million times, mostly while in college, when expense and/or selection was a major issue.

Bud is extremely pale yellow in color, a far cry from the crisp, golden, glowing beer you see in the ads. There is no aroma, and the flavor is so lifeless that it's much better ice-cold, with its flavors pretty much totally muted, because once it warms up it becomes unbearable. Carbonation is way too high for my tastes but I guess that's done to make up for Bud lacking in just about every other department.

Bottom line: this is what I drink at sporting events when I've forgotten my flask and all the other beers are "lite" offerings.

Serving type: can

01-29-2006 19:21:51 | More by VoodooBrew
Budweiser from Anheuser-Busch
56 out of 100 based on 4,394 ratings.