1. American Craft Beer Fest returns to Boston on May 29 & 30, featuring 640+ beers from 140+ brewers. Tickets are on sale now.

Budweiser - Anheuser-Busch

Not Rated.
BudweiserBudweiser

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
57
awful

5,298 Ratings
THE BROS
80
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 5,298
Reviews: 1,610
rAvg: 2.35
pDev: 33.62%
Wants: 45
Gots: 813 | 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:
Beer added by: kbub6f on 11-21-2000

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.
View: Beers (80) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
to view all ratings, reviews and sorting options.
Ratings: 5,298 | Reviews: 1,610
Photo of marty21
1.2/5  rDev -48.9%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

A: Pours a very pale yellow with a small white head that quickly disappeared to nothing. Leaves no lacing.

S: Hardly any aroma but there's grain and corn.

T: Hardly any taste. It's like water with some rice and corn.

M: Light carbonation with a light body.

D: I have no problem drinking macro beers. I often do when I'm with friends. But there is something about Budweiser that makes me cringe. The only time I can even finish a Bud is if it's ice cold and I chug it. I also feel like Bud Light has more taste and more of a body to it.

Photo of VelvetExtract
2.7/5  rDev +14.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Really forgot to review this.

A-Pours pale, pale, translucent yellow. Foamy white head expands then quickl recedes leaving some tin islands of lace.

S-Typical sweet, skunky adjunct nose. A bit grainy and some sweetness.

T-One of the more preferable Macros in my opinion. Its not as good as PBR and is a far cry from Gansett but hey, some people call it home. I like it better than Bud Light so there.

M-Light and super carbonated. Watery, sometimes you feel like a Bud will hit the spot, and in those very rare occasions the feel of the beer is mildly satisfying.

D-Easy to drink but less drinkable than its more water counterparts. More prnounced flavor (unattractive flavor) does not allow me to pound these like I could a Coors Light if I was looking to get hammered.

When standing next to its cousins, this one is not the worst. Period.

Photo of afksports
1.16/5  rDev -50.6%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Well, in the interests of doing a fair comparison of American Adjunct Lagers, I took a bit of extra time after the weekly football game and tried to put a can of this back with the boys in a side-by-side with PBR.

That was probably unfair to Bud, because really they shouldn't be expected to simultaneously be America's largest beer producer AND be good... right?

The straw colored brew has a few bubbles and a little head. Decent carbonation. Smells awful though. Truly like acrid and rank funk. I can't get any of that beechwood. More like Clydesdale sweat. Taste is about the same. It has this horrible note that sits from front to middle to back and stays with you every sip. I can't describe it. It's like rotten citrus maybe?

Hard to drink because of the smell and taste, but I suppose it doesn't feel too bad in the mouth when you're not tasting it. For that I can't knock it.

But it should be known. This is one of the worst beers I've ever had. I'd say the same if they were a backwoods company in the middle of nowhere calling themselves craft.

Just bad. Avoid drinking this one. Even if it's beer pong.

Photo of uno99
1.97/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Budweiser -- the king of all beers; beechwood aging*; clydesdales; billion dollar marketing budgets.

A: Lemony yellow, very clear. head dissapears instantly and leaves no lacing.

S: Not too bad actually -- I made the mistake of smelling the can after I opened it, and a foul vapour entered my nostrils. Pour Budweiser into a glass however, and you get a semi sweet corn/vegitable mix, and a hint of malt.

T: Things go downhill quickly however if you intend on actually drinking this. It tastes like monkey sweat mixed with apple juice. Monkey sweat may be a desired flavour in some extreme barnyardy lambics and wild ales; not in a lager however. Things are worse after you swallow. the aftertaste is lingering, and foul.

M: Very thin of course, and seltzer like. Carbonation is overdone and artificial.

D: Well this is a bad beer -- no doubt -- but in a catagory that is usually poorly apointed I can't in good faith be too hard on this beer. It's better than many of its cheaper counterparts, but only by a slim margin. (Still bad though! barely drinkable swill!)

*Do they really still do fuckin beechwood aging? that must be a FUCK OF A LOT of beechwood. do they hire a bunch of drifters to comb the shoreline everyday for new pieces of wood? This "beechwood" claim is highly suspect!!

Photo of crayolahalls
2.26/5  rDev -3.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I think that Budweiser gets a worse than deserved rap because it is such a prominent name and they use really arrogant marketing ("king" of beers). I don't think it is a great beer, but I think it is average and consumable under the right conditions. Not a sipper, but nothing wrong with slamming some in the heat of summer.

App - Yellow and bubbly.

Smell - Average sums it up. I normally don't really catch much smell when I crank one down out of the bottle.

Taste - Ok, it is a fairly two-dimensional beer. No highlights, no surprises, and with the wrong food can be kind of sickly.

Mouth - About the only thing I really like about this beer. I find that it is not assaulting on the mouth and actually can be refreshing and cleansing.

Drink - I don't suggest it to anyone. I don't buy it unless I need a lot of cheap beer. I can say that I can drink a lot of it and that under the right conditions I think it is just fine.

Photo of xylophonica
2.47/5  rDev +5.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Poured from a 355ml bottle into a Jupiler glass.

A - Very light golden colour. Small head but plenty of carbonation bubbles.

S - Bit of wheat, bread and malt.

T - Soft in taste but fairly crisp on the palate. Has a mild tang to it which quickly fades away in the mouth. Slightly bitter with some bready & rice like flavours but unfortunately it dies out pretty quickly.

M - There's some mild spiciness here due mainly to the carbonation. Otherwise it's.. plain.

D - You could drink it easily without too much hassle but I'm not sure why you'd want to..

I've decided to edit this review as this beer really has got worse the more I drink..

Photo of Brunite
2.2/5  rDev -6.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Appearance - Head is about an inch thick but dissipates quickly leaving no lace. Clear as can be.

Smell - Not much here. A little sweetness...a little grain.

Taste - Obviously a corn/rice adjunct beer. A funny off-tasting sweetness. Not much more taste than water has. It is amazing how tasteless this stuff is compared to a well-made craft brew.

Mouthfeel - Very thin...carbonation. NO hop bitterness to speak of.

Drinkability - Easy to drink...but why would you. I finished this in 2-3 gulps. Low ABV makes this something only good for drinking games...lawnmowing....or your kids friends when they stop by.

Photo of dali27
3.14/5  rDev +33.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

12 oz bottles from recent trip in Vegas.

One of the days that I was in Vegas this past week, I decided to make it a Bud day. Being in casinos getting "complimentary" beers, I thought it a good idea to try what was my first beer of choice, or I guess availablity.

Overall, my experience was of a very good time. I see how this beer is the beer of the masses. The taste is acceptable and the beer is really so light that it can be had in large quanitities and not put you in a bad spot.

I really do love the label of this beer. Points for Appearance. It's marketing, I know... but that's why it's the "King of Beers". This label is so iconic in American culture. I like how it references its heritage, even if the product is pale shade of what it proclaims to be.

I definitely will not have this beer on my list as a have-to-have. I can think of at least five other adjuncts that I would rather have. But, if/when I am in the position to have another, I most likely would not pass one up.

Photo of DCon
3.54/5  rDev +50.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 4 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 5

Enjoyed at the Corner Pub in Ellisville, MO (Plus over 100 other places) but reviewed from here. Served into a pint glass and enjoyed in less than 30 minutes.

Appearance- Very clear, light yellow color with a thin (millimeter length) head.

Smell- Not much... Malt at best is what I can smell even in a smoke-free bar. Wondering where they can add some type of aroma?

Taste- One of my favorite adjunct American style beers. You can taste light rice and wheat.

Mouthfeel- Nothing going through my taste buds but a smooth, refreshing feel. Light Bodied of course and should be! Its the king of beers!

Drinkability- 3rd to Bud Light and Bud Select in Drinkability but awesome! Can enjoy, slam, or have anytime of the day. Had three in a row and will now switch to a Bud Select to see how this tastes on tap!

Photo of hophopandaway
1.18/5  rDev -49.8%
look: 4 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

I'm shocked thhat this beer has got some c scores.
Looks okay but lacking in colour dues to the 2 day brewing process ( I imagine from the lack of flav
our).

No smell, no taste but a little sugar and so heavily carbonated that by the time I finnished I wanted to do a Barney Gumble-style burp.

YUK.

Photo of StoneTSR
1.6/5  rDev -31.9%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

I tried a Bud Light recently just to review it. Things did not go very well. I just could not force it down and ended up pouring it down the drain. So, I figured I'd give the "real thing" a shot and I poured a regular Bud "Heavy". I do have to say, I was surprised to notice a slight difference between the two. I expected that they would be indistinguishable. Anyhow, here is how it went:

APPEARANCE: The same pale, straw color as Bud Light, I cannot tell these two beers apart based on their color, but the regular Bud had a little more head and it actually retained it for a minute or so. It is a good looking beer.

SMELL: Here's where things began to go south. There is almost zero smell, but what is detectable is a sweet, corn aroma. Pretty lousy and not appetizing for a beer.

TASTE: The taste is very similar to the taste of the Bud Light, corn, sweet flavors, but the Bud Heavy is a bit more full-flavored and the alcohol is more noticeable.

MOUTHFEEL: There was a small bit of sparkle in the Budweiser, which makes it a little more tolerable than the Bud Light. It is certainly better carbonated.

OVERALL: The Budweiser lasted about half the glass before getting drain poured, which is better than the BL. It was more drinkable in the sense that it was vaguely recognizable as beer and had some sparkle to it. Also, on tap, the beer was a bit warmer than normal. Out of a COLD bottle, when the temperature hides some of the flavor, it is much easier to drink.

Photo of IchabodcraneIpa
2.8/5  rDev +19.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 4

For a standard every day beer the king of beers isn't all that bad. Sure it lacks anything extraordinary, but this beer does go down smooth and is surprisingly drinkable. This is my go to standard beer. This beer seems to me to be less carbonated than the rest of the beers around it such as bud light, pbr, miller, and icehouse. I respect this beer simply for the fact that it has endured, and I myself could never really say no to a budweiser unless there was some ipa or Belgian style goodness around.

Photo of beerdepartment
3/5  rDev +27.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

NOTE: THIS WAS A "HEAD TO HEAD" CAGE FIGHT BETWEEN ROLLING ROCK, SCHLITZ, HIGH LIFE, AND BUDWEISER. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE THE FIRST ROUND OF CLASSIC "ECONOMY" CLASS AMERICAN BEERS. THESE NOTES WILL BE IDENTICAL FOR ALL 4 BEERS, SO RATING ACCORDING TO PERCENTAGE OF POINTS IS IMPOSSIBLE; I GAVE THEM ALL "Average" BECAUSE THE WEBSITE MANDATES A NUMERICAL RATING.

appearance:

Rolling Rock is the palest (by a fraction) of all of the beers, which is not necessarily appetizing; the darkest is actually High Life, which is a shock, but the range is so small that I would call these nearly identical in color. Bubbles look most appetizing in Shlitz, which is actually the most champagne looking in bubble structure. Take that High Life! Budweiser is perhaps the most elegant with the velvety head that is retained better than those of all of the others. After a few minutes, RR and Schlitz heads have faded to amorphous, perhaps pangea-like shapes -- HL and Bud have wall-to-wall carpets of (thin) foam. Overall, with bubbles and head accounted for, High Life is winner in appearance.

aroma: RR has a cidery note on the first big whiff; pleasant; Schlitz is marked by a yeastier, older smell; not bad, but RR was fresher and nicer smelling; High Life is subtle enough to almost be imperceptibe yeast if anything; Budweiser impresses with a melon-like freshness; whats the deal? It smells good. On second whiff RR is more pickle-like than cider like -- not as good; Schlitz still yeasty on second snort, with some malt; HL has some less pleasant yeast smells coming through; Budweiser yet again shocks with a very nice fresh smell, with a bit of funk from something in there. Overall, Bud wins the aroma challenge.

taste: (all tastings were separated by Bravo pizza, which is the most appropriate palate cleanse for this that I can imagine.

RR tastes like water with a splash of melon juice, carbonation, some malt, and yeast; Schlitz has a bit more going on; slightly bigger flavor, slightly more pronounced malt; no melon; less watery; better than RR; HL exemplifies the amazing power of american bulk lager makers to make beer that tastes like more than carbonated water but still not like much of anything -- better than RR, but that could be a mouthfeel issue; like all so far, finishes clean, maybe with some corn note and a thin gossamer of bitterness; Budweiser has a bit of malt and corn noticeable, but nothing wild by comparison; this competition seems less a competition of flavor than a competition of body and mouthfeel; second gulps (big ones) verify the melon lightness of RR; Schlitz is a bit more corny on the second time around, and maybe a tiny hop flower present; High Life still evades capture by my power of description; Budweiser ringing a bit buttery/watery oak this time. Overall, although this defies my theory, Rolling Rock seems to be the winner on taste. There is actually something intriguing about the freshness an fruitiness of it; it is enough to make me wonder what was in the glass last, or if my soap tastes like fruit, but I really think this glass was good to go. Budweiser second. Schlitz third. High Life 4th. Bear in mind that none of these beers is putting others to shame in any category so far; this is a near tie. Maybe only Jackson or Parker's tongue could rank these, because mine is struggling. For the record, they all do have some hops in them as the bitterness is ringing now. And I'm basically 10 minutes into a power hour, so I'll get to mouthfeel ASAP.

Mouthfeel: Schlitz struck me through all of these tastes as having the most pleasant mouthfeel, but I'll test one more time: At this point, after sitting out for just a few minutes, Schlitz is struggling to retain carbonation at all, which is why it felt pleasantly dense at the beginning. This is a noticeable problem for Schlitz -- there is no lacing on the glass whatsoever; it is the most dead looking of all the beers BY FAR. Rolling Rock and High Life look tastiest in terms of foam now, and that matters for mouthfeel. Rolling Rock and Bud are doing the best at retaining carbonation. Schlitz is truly almost flat. High Life is struggling to taste and feel as though it should be drunk and not left as a wounded soldier.

JUDGEMENT: I am suprised to say that with everything taken into account, if I were to go to the store to buy an 18 pack, I would buy Rolling Rock. Let that speak for itself. But let it be known that not everything comes in 18 packs, and that might change things. So let me say that if I were to buy a loose beer again out of these 4, it would be a Rolling Rock.

Congratulations Rolling Rock; you have survived this round of economy class beer competition.

Serving type: bottle

Photo of eat
2.71/5  rDev +15.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

A can left over from a party...I'll review it because it's more fun than pouring it down the drain. Completely clear, light golden-yellow, lots of visible carbonation. A cover of airy white head sits on top. Looks like beer.

Smells of rising dough and characterless astringency. Maybe the tiniest bit of dusty hop extract hiding in there; they do need to be able to claim that they did actually use hops, after all.

Fairly well-balanced with adjunct sweetness (a little apple juice in there) and mildly-peppery, light hop-like flavour. It doesn't seem like real hops somehow. I'm not noticing any kind of grain character. Very simple flavour with nothing good or bad jumping out at you. The aftertaste is a little weird actually, but it fades quickly.

Thin body with medium-light carbonation. The finish is too drying for this beer in my opinion.

It is what it is. This beer is average at best and I'm sure that's what Anheuser-Busch want it to be. I would never buy this stuff but maybe it's mostly because I'm not a big fan of light lager. As an adjunct lager, it's really not all that bad. I've had much worse. An averagely drinkable, average tasting beer for average people who enjoy average things.

Photo of BeerMane
3.11/5  rDev +32.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This beer gets a lot of negative reviews on here but overall for the money I think it's an ok beer. Has a clear golden yellow color, with a distinct smooth taste. I've had it from a bottle, can and on tap each time I feel that if it's fresh it taste smooth.

Photo of jmvecchio1
1.89/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 1 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

L-Straw yellow, hyper carbonated, white head that dissipates faster than Sarah Palin's political career (wishful thinking).
S-It's a lager that doesn't smell bad, it just doesn't smell good
T-Well you know what you're getting. Metallic, watery, super carbonated mouthfeel. I feel like the taste is "cold".
D-Well we know you (okay some people) can drink a lot of these. So technically it's drinkable in the same way that Arbor Mist is a drinkable wine.

Photo of Stockfan42
3.05/5  rDev +29.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Pours a clear pale yellow body with with an off white brittle head that just dissapears over a few seconds.

Smells of corn and bread. That's really all I can make out, there's not a whole lot of aroma going on.

Taste's of corn, rice and lots of malt. Very well balanced and well carbonated. A very easily drinkable beverage.

Mouthfeel is mostly just carbonation. Goes down smooth and easy.

Overall its no king of beers, but a beer that never lets me down. Tasty and drinkable.

Photo of abc3
2.15/5  rDev -8.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 4

Well, what can I say? This is the watered down product of the barley shortage of WWII. Hello rice! This beer could only truly appeal to those who's fake ID's barely pass to score a 12-pack.

Yes, I drank it too. And preferred it to Coors Light, and California Coolers.

Barely.

But I feel I was justified. I was, after all, performing my patriotic duty to purchase American products. And besides, all those pretty horses in the commercials, how could you not feel good buying such a brand?

Now it's owned by the Belgians (why? who knows? Perhaps they are capturing its yeast strain?) Ok that was beer geek humor.

Anyway, this beer can now officially appeal to no one. The craft industry has brought great beer to our grocery stores, and people don't think white rice is very good for us any more.

Then again, it's a great bet if you are drinking through a funnel.

Photo of dbaker61
1.71/5  rDev -27.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Appearance: On pouring, builds a vigorous fizzy head, about a finger thick, which quickly dies off. Absolutely no lacing, as all the head is gone. Light yellow color, quite clear.

Smell: Grainy, but not in a good malty way. Definitely an adjunct beer.

Taste: Almost no body, and precious little flavor. There aren't really any off-notes here, but neither is there much taste at all. So I guess it aims to not offend by being inoffensive?

Mouthfeel: Blah. There just is nothing here. Slight aftertaste, but of what?

Drinkability: If you want to pound down some beers, and don't want flavor getting in the way, this is the beer for you. Not for me, though. Finishing one was a trying time for me.

Photo of welldigger888
1.31/5  rDev -44.3%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

So, poured from 16oz can in to my trusted irish pub pint glass,pale straw hue with a snow white head with minamal lacing.
Almost non-existant aroma.
Very much an adjunct beer, little malt and vague hop flavors. Mostly corn and rice here for sure.
Very thin and unappealing.
Well I guess if you can stomach, very easy to drink as it lacks ALL things beer.

Photo of BeerLover99
2.35/5  rDev 0%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A: bright yellow body, big head, no lacing.

S: sweet grain, corn.

T: same as nose, but has a metallic bitter after taste.

M: light body, big carbonation.

D: This for me is the one of the worst American macro/adjunct lagers out there. if you love people, do not get suckered into buying this for a party.

Photo of marrisotter
4.06/5  rDev +72.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 5

Well. It is what it is. And just because it doesn't say Dogfish, Sierra Nevada, Anchor, Harpoon or some other "craft" beer name on the label, I--unlike many other that rate these beers-- will chose to rate it according to what it is: An American Pilsner Beer.

A--Brilliant clarity. I let it warm just a tad so that the carbonation had a chance to "hold"

S--faint DMS and corn. Some apple. Clear lack of aromatic hops...but that is NOT the intention of this beer

T--light. Crisp. Certainly not offensive. Not a whole lot going on in here--but why would there be? It is an impression of an American Lager. Just to be on the safe side, I cracked another. It tasted EXACTLY the same. Very consistent

M--Though minimal, the flavors meld well and the body is light. Refreshing.

D--4.5 for sure. You could rip these all day long at the beach. That is this beer's intention, and for that, I am rewarding it

Photo of Aphexwolf
3.22/5  rDev +37%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4.5

Appearance: Pale yellow, clear, medium size head, poor retention, good carbonation.
Smell: Very faint. Malts, hops. Corn or rice maybe. Faint, but still pleasant.
Taste: Faint hops and maltiness. Actually does taste refreshing.
Mouthfeel: Light, but not watery, at least for a pale lager.
Drinkability: High. Goes down smooth. Can drink several quickly.
Summary: This is a good beer. I gave it 7.8/10, or C+. I was pleasantly surprised with this beer. After drinking Bud Light for several years, I imagined this to be a commercial "beer flavored water", but it's not. It actually tastes like an Ameerican Adjunct Lager! I don't know if I would call this the "King of Beers", but it's definitely something I wouldn't turn down. I would drink this beer again.

Photo of Scrylol
2.24/5  rDev -4.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Pours a a nice 1 finger head, lots of carbonation, bubbles going up to the top. Light, pale yellow color, sort of like apple juice but a bit lighter. The appearance is decent, looks crisp and clear with a nice white head.

Slight hint of wheat, corn, and what seems like rice? on the nose.

The taste is similar to the smell. Very slight hint of Wheat, some corn and other adjuncts, and there seems to be some sort of metallic taste to it.

It goes down very very easily, though it's a bit watery. Very slight carbonation.

Overall this is something you can down on a hot summer day. Otherwise, it's best to stay away from this beer.

Photo of Chronofied
2.31/5  rDev -1.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Served from a can into a pint glass at 46 degrees F.

Appearance - Head is about an inch thick at first, but dissipates rapidly, leaving behind little to no lace. Clarity is superb. Carbonation visible but mild.

Smell - Not a strong smell, mostly just grain with the tiniest hint of yeastiness. Must be quite close to the glass in order to test the aroma.

Taste - Taste doesn't hold much, but it is fairly crisp, if light. Most of the taste comes from graininess, but even the grain character is a bit faded. Not bitter in the least, with just a little bit of sweetness that implies malt without being malty at all.

Mouthfeel - Very viscous, to the point of being watery. Carbonation is actually fairly decent, though with the wateriness of the beer, the carbonation is most of what you feel, rather than the beer simply opening up.

Drinkability - Well, it gets props for ease of drinkability... though desire to drink more is really non-existent. There is nothing compelling that really entertains the idea of another.

to view all ratings, reviews and sorting options.
Budweiser from Anheuser-Busch
57 out of 100 based on 5,298 ratings.