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

4,674 Ratings
THE BROS
80
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 4,674
Reviews: 1,455
rAvg: 2.33
pDev: 33.48%
Wants: 25
Gots: 384 | 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)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Budweiser Alström Bros
Ratings: 4,674 | Reviews: 1,455 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Deconstructionis
2.65/5  rDev +13.7%

This is the epitome of an unimpressive American beer. That said, this is also the least bad of the products manufactured by the Big 3. If I'm somewhere where my choices are limited to Coors, Miller and AB products (and the ubiquitous Corona) and I simply must have a beer, I'll take a Bud. I doubt I need to explain its characteristics to anyone.

Deconstructionis, Aug 29, 2006
Photo of bonbright7
2.05/5  rDev -12%

I was wondering why Budweiser's ranking in the BA was AVOID until today.
I thought for certain that just about everyone who drank beer at one time or another, had tasted Budweiser, for better or worse. I had previously enjoyed Bud on tap as a good beer for crawfish boils, sloppy bbq, and sushi, but the can tonight didn't do it justice.

Appearing as a bright golden lager, it came up in the glass with a slight head that disappeared after the first taste. The slight malty bite with a grainy sweetness was the only discernable quality I could come up with about the beer.

I had most of the container before dumping it and going to the fridge to fish out a Brooklyn Pilsner to bring character back to my senses.

While Bud in a can has improvements to make, I will try the draft again in the near future to see if it is still desirable as I remember it to be.

2/24/07 Update: Had Bud in a tall neck with recent date of making. Sorry, no improvement. Still holding out for draft.

bonbright7, Aug 26, 2006
Photo of lsfrontman
3.15/5  rDev +35.2%

Yes, this is a Bud, a macro-brewed, typically American lager whose defining characteristic is utter mediocrity. GET OVER IT. It isn't a Russian Imperial Stout, it isn't a quintuple IPA, it isn't Belgian anything; it's just Bud. If you want a clean, refreshing, utterly drinkable beer then this is it. If you want complexity and taste, then what the heck are you doing drinking a Bud in the first place? Ah beer snobs, although I am your kin you still make me laugh.


Serving: Classic brown bottle with beautiful label and long neck.


Appearance: Golden, translucent, and piss colored--like any ale,
ipa, lager, or pilsner.


Smell: A bit harsh with strong alcohol and harsh skunky overtones.


Taste: Very clean with a pleasing hammer of cereal and mild twang of citrus.


Mouthfeel: Fizzy and strong in the initial millisecond followed by a vacuumesque finish oddly reminiscent of water.


Drinkability: Up there with the best. How can anyone honestly say otherwise?

lsfrontman, Aug 24, 2006
Photo of dustylong
3/5  rDev +28.8%

I guess considering the style, this beer isn't that bad... Pours a light golden yellow color, with a tiny head with almost no retention and a tiny bit of lacing (poured from a can into a mug). The beer smells like a typical macro lager...and very weak. The taste is also typical of the style..nothing too impressive, but what do you expect? Definately a ricey taste to it. Very crisp, with a good amount of carbonation. A typical "go to the party, get drunk, who cares about the taste" beer...if thats what you want...drink it.

dustylong, Aug 21, 2006
Photo of beachbum1975
1.83/5  rDev -21.5%

Budweiser.. A Great Beer (For the Grill) - Does Budweiser have a new marketing strategy - for the grill???

That's right folks, I always have a six pack of Budweiser on hand. I keep it right near my propane grill, so when it's time to cook a burger or steak on the grill, I have something that will very quickly extinguish the flame and not give off a horrible scent. (I wouldn't wanna waste a micro brew either man, that's expensive!!!)

Ok, ok... Don't get me wrong folks, maybe I'm being too hard on the Old King O' Beers.

Afterall, I guess if I had 4 dollars and my choice of drink between a sixer of Budweiser and a gallon of paint thinner, I'm gonna take the Bud...

Well, actually do I have time to think about that before deciding?

beachbum1975, Aug 18, 2006
Photo of allergictomacros
2.73/5  rDev +17.2%

Ah... bud. King of Beers. Skinny red aluminum bottle. I like the bottle and that's it's #1 attribute. I've had it before but I've never reviewed it either.

A - Clear straw with a not-bad head. Love the can.

S - Muted adjuncty nose with a touch of skunk.

T - Low bitterness, low flavour. Quite a sweet beer.

M - Fizzy, light body. Hurts the palate some.

D - Not bad. A generally inoffensive if flavourless beer. I guess this is what macro lagers are all about.

allergictomacros, Aug 16, 2006
Photo of robocrouch
2.23/5  rDev -4.3%

Got some of this at my buddies birthday party. It was free, why not review.

Appearance: Staying true to the macro lager style, urine yellow.

Smell: Metallic and grain is what I first pick up on. Followed by a little bit of hopy twang.

Taste: Like the smell starts with metallic malt ness that is smooth on the tongue and finishes crisp. I picked up on maybe some fruity-ness to it.

Drinkability: Is high due to the fact that it is a refreshing crisp beer.

Overall not too bad but far from great. I wouldn’t buy it.

robocrouch, Aug 15, 2006
Photo of drotski
2/5  rDev -14.2%

I came across a can of this (I would never buy it myself), and decided I'd drink it, after much self debate.

It poured a classic urine color, with a nice pure white head that lasted about 30 seconds. It did have moderate lacing on the glass.

I didn't notice much of a smell sort of like malt with a slight bit of skunk, diluted with lots of water. Didn't notice any hops

Tasted like seltzer water and rice. A definite rice character on the finish. Sort of made me hungry for rice pudding. Not a trace of bitterness, boring.

Dry and carbonated mouthfeel. No body, just like seltzer water.

This one is very drinkable, but not too exciting. If you swapped it with water, I may of never noticed. Its a good beer when there are no other options, and you just want to get drunk. If you want something good to drink (and can't find another type of beer), get a glass of water, its cheaper.

drotski, Aug 14, 2006
Photo of JOaikido
2.45/5  rDev +5.2%

Bottle brewed under licence by Labatt, presumably in Montreal.

A- Thick foamy head with big bubbles that dissapears quickly leaving nothing behind. Very pale yellow colour. Looks dead after a few minutes.

S- OK but weak.

T- Weak but no off flavours. Very little aftertaste (touch of hops).

MF- Light, watery. Carbonation OK, but a bit high. Leaves mouth feelig OK, not pasty like some cheap beers, which contributes to drinkability.

D- Easy to drink. Macro beer designed to be drunk in large quantities. Not a bad choice among American macro beers.

JOaikido, Aug 14, 2006
Photo of ghostmech007
1.98/5  rDev -15%

King of Beers? I think not.

It looks like unrine after you put soap bubbles on top. A pale yellow. But the head was stark white.

The smell starts off great, yet after you smell it you've say to yourself you've smelled this one before. Lot's of malt smells and a faint wiff of hops.

The taste is like soda water at first, very thin and watery. It's taste like club sode with corn or wheat or something. Then the carbonation is way overbearing. It'll fizz on you like a crazy bitch. I prefferre to enjoy my beer not be in a chunging contest at parties.

I could drink this but I would get bored by the time I finished it I wouldn't want another. I just glad I don't actually buy this one. It would be a waste of my money.

ghostmech007, Aug 13, 2006
Photo of rhythmguitartz88
1.75/5  rDev -24.9%

the apperance was not that impressive... the bottle was nice however the beer poured very light...not really my fancy

the smell was min to none; i could bearly find it

the taste can be described in two words: piss water

the mouthfeel wasn't that great very water-esque

the drinkability was not good at all and yea thats really all there is to say about that so if you like it what ever but its not my first choice let's put it that way...

rhythmguitartz88, Aug 13, 2006
Photo of funkengruven
3.35/5  rDev +43.8%

Bud. the Self-Proclaimed King of Beers. Not really.. But for what it is, it's not the worst of it's kind.

This pours a very average yellow macro-lager with a fizzy head that quickly subsides. Smell is slightly grassy with little else to describe. This too is reflected in the flavor, rather average, some grassy notes, little else. With all this being said however it is not offensive, in fact for the style of beer this is, it happens to be among one of the easiest drinking.

As a beer in general, there is many other better beers out there. But for a Macro, it's really not that bad.

funkengruven, Aug 11, 2006
Photo of BryanCarey
1.98/5  rDev -15%

Budweiser is touted by its manufacturer as the "King of Beers" and it is indeed the king based on sales. But the taste and appearance of Budweiser are forgettable. The body of this beer is very light in color, the aroma is nasty, and the white head of foam disappears quickly. The taste is also forgettable, with light cereal grains and the snappy taste of rice predominating, culminating in an unpleasant, bitter finish.

Budweiser is a great selling product due to the relentless advertising that appears everywhere you turn. It has wide availability and it will likely continue to sell in spite of its many flaws. I drink it only when I have no other choice. Otherwise, the so- called "King of Beers" is not permitted to dine at my table. I'll take a lesser- known microbrewed beer any day.

BryanCarey, Aug 09, 2006
Photo of MusicmanSD
2.58/5  rDev +10.7%

Had one for the hell of it awhile back. Poured that nasty, putrid looking American Macro color of dehydrated piss. Head was all big bubbles, didn't have any retention. Albeit, better than its light counterpart. Smell is really nothing, a bit corny, but not as strong as Miller's offerings. The taste is decent, kind of malty, and primarily adjuncty however. The mouthfeel? Water, just like anything else produced by AB. Drinkability is the only high part of this beer. If your looking to throw a party or whatever, and don't want to slip below Natty Light, this or Coors Original is what you wanna go with! Usually on sale in some sort of different packing. For the love of god, I don't know why people pick this up in the 22 oz can all the time. A 40 must be hell!

MusicmanSD, Aug 08, 2006
Photo of eballard
3.13/5  rDev +34.3%

This beer pours a rich golden color with a light lace of head. The head stuck around until I was finished. It had a faint smell of sweet grain but not much of any other smell. It tasted fairly common place with a grainy malt flavor but unlike many caned beers there wasn’t much of a metallic aftertaste. It has a bubbly feel and a smooth texture. Over all it has been around as long as it has for a reason. It’s a finely drinkable beer that would appeal to most people. It’s not too complex but it has a decent taste.

eballard, Aug 07, 2006
Photo of gunnerman
2.1/5  rDev -9.9%

ok here is the one and only King of Beers, well I dont know where they came up with that tag line, this doesn't taste like it should carry that tag line. Poured into a pint glass, yellow and fizzy with a head that recedes in less than 5 seconds, no lace left. Taste is of malt with corn added to it not very tasty. I like to avoid this Loser of beers at all costs.

gunnerman, Aug 06, 2006
Photo of fido
2.63/5  rDev +12.9%

Budweiser pours a very clear golden yellow color with some head that dissipates quickly and almost no lace, Nice carbonation; Smell is grainy and some corn; Taste is a little bit malty; Mouthfeel is clean and crisp; Very drinkable and refreshing.

¡Salud!

fido, Aug 03, 2006
Photo of jwc215
2.48/5  rDev +6.4%

16 oz. can into pint glass:

Poured light yellow with a thin white head that soon disappeared.
The smell was of adjuncts - not much else.
The taste - plenty of water - some sweet malt - hops nearly undetectable - too much rice is used. A slight metallic tinge (I assume from the can).
Has somewhat more taste than the light macros or some other macros in general, but is still lacking. For how much they produce, and for what it is, I suppose it's not terrible - but, it's not good either - lacks the taste and smoothness that it should have. It leaves a bit of a raw aftertaste.
It sort of quenches a thirst and I can drink it when only American macros are available, or in a pinch - but, it really lacks character and a good taste.

jwc215, Aug 02, 2006
Photo of supercolter
2.53/5  rDev +8.6%

Appearance was a faint straw yellow, with zero head or lacing.
Smell was a very slight better with a semi sweet malt coming through.
Taste was a combonation of sweet malt and dry old malt.
Mouthfeel was like water, no oily feeling and very minimal carbonation.
Drinkability is something like this....could I session it...no....could I chug it at a frat party...yep

supercolter, Jul 30, 2006
Photo of CaskofFlyingDog
2.95/5  rDev +26.6%

I got this in a aluminum bottle which i didn't buy. It says it has three times the amount of aluminum as a normal can - what a waste of aluminum.
Appearance: effervencense golore, decent sized head that seems anemicly thin though, slight lacing

Smell: cheap macro ass

Taste: It tastes corny then it is milded over by the rice.

Mouthfeel: thin, very slightly grainy

Drinkability: Easy drinker just kinda boring and not very appealing tastewise. It's kinda the beer you'd drink after you just got done mowing the grass. Also I'd say it's better in the can/bottle.

CaskofFlyingDog, Jul 22, 2006
Photo of Noxious26
1.75/5  rDev -24.9%

341ml bottle in a plastic glass. This is the Canadian version brewed by Labatt's.

Clear, straw yellow in colour. White head is 1/8 inch on the pour but quickly recedes to a thin ring.

Aroma is quite mild. Light grains and adjuncts. Typical macro lager.

First sip actually tasted quite good, but as the beer went, the flavour went downhill. One of the more adjuct laden macros available in Canada. Grains at the start then dominated by adjuncts and petrol notes throughout. Astringent aftertaste.

Light bodied and overly carbonated. Harsh, caustic mouthfeel.

I can see why it's been about 10 years since I had one of these... and it'll probably be atleast that long until I have one again.

Noxious26, Jul 22, 2006
Photo of scottblaze
2.03/5  rDev -12.9%

Color? yeah it sorta looks like beer.

Smell - not much

Taste - I have a very hard time getting this down and liking it. It has a nasty taste for my delicate sensibilities, I don't know if it comes from the rice, the "beechwood" aging or what.

Drinkability? See above.

Every now and then I go down to the local biker bar and drink a couple of beers. All the bikers down there drink Bud because it makes them look tough. If your a biker, looking tough, especialy in front of your buddies, is big medicine. What do I drink when I go down there?...Bud of course...Hell, I'm in a biker bar.

scottblaze, Jul 14, 2006
Photo of Maestro
3/5  rDev +28.8%

This beer is the ultimate example of average. I feel that this represents America in so many ways that it is sort of embarassing. However, I hear that most pubs around the globe carry this beer and most of the rest of the world enjoys it.

Anyhow, I don't know that I have ever bought this beer until this weekend. I wanted to try some beers that are mainstream and that I haven't had before. I picked up a 24 ounce can of Bud and got exactly what I paid for: yellow, low flavor, low hops, consistently brewed macro lager. Being a hot day, it went down smooth.

Maestro, Jul 12, 2006
Photo of rsyberg01
2.4/5  rDev +3%

S - Budweiser 12 ounce can.

A - Crystal clear golden hue. Head dissipates like a soda, but then decently holds itself around the edge.

S - Malt and corn. Alcohol is somewhat present in the nose.

T - Clean with a little metallic aftertaste. Pretty much only malt with a few residing flavors floating around with corn being one of those tastes.

M - Crisp and very clean except for the metal taste on the back of my tongue.

D - Easy drinking as they say in the ads. I could drink 20 of these at a baseball game anyday.

rsyberg01, Jul 07, 2006
Photo of DrainBamage
2.63/5  rDev +12.9%

Pours a pale yellow with little carbonation and has minimal head which thins out to pretty much a single layer of bubbles with a little more on the side. Looks like water with a drop off yellow food coloring. Has a sweetier malty smell than I remember and has a faint piney hop aroma also. The taste is much stronger than I remember also and kinda just sits in your mouth, but not necessarily a good thing in this case. The mouthfeel is highly carbonated and acidity and kinda burns in the back of the throat. The beer isn't very well balanced. This beer could be a bit better if the flavor and carbonation were balanced a little better.

DrainBamage, Jul 07, 2006
Budweiser from Anheuser-Busch
56 out of 100 based on 4,674 ratings.